@6099
"the engine top 1 move coincides with the top 1 engine move"
++ No, the engine top 1 move coincides with the 7-men table base correct move.
Here you're contradicting your own statement.
You said
I previously posted calculations of two of your irrevelant positions. The engine top 1 move coincided with the top 1 engine move.
I gently pointed out
Firstly, I think you'll find the engine top 1 move coincides with the top 1 engine move whatever game played by an engine you consider.
Now I find you attributing your howler to me.
There are multiple tablebases and multiple correct moves for each, so you should say "a correct move" not "the correct move".
"A tablebase correct move, not necessarily the top" ++ It is either table base correct or not.
We already knew you don't understand tablebases. What you say is true for a particular tablebase but not necessarily for different tablebases.
Certainly it is generally not "the top or not" in different tablebases.
"That would depend on how you plan to do it." ++ I have explained.
"And I did nothing wrong with my version of Stockfish."
++ Your version makes mistakes and mine does not.
Not true. SF15 is rated higher than SF14. Your version of Stockfish is just too bone idle to play enough games to make mistakes.
"A think time of 2048 seconds is getting closer to the 17s on a 10^9 NPS that you've quoted."
++ Agree, but if my engine top 1 move is already table base correct I do not need more.
Your calculations take the results of multiple games to determine error rates. That's why I provided you with multiple games. You're not going to get very far with a single game with unknown think time if you're going to apply your calculations to it.
"I haven't generated any games from the position myself." ++ I did.
One as far as I know. Is that enough to talk about "games" plural?
[Deleted text reinserted: You appear to be saying that]"only positions and think times where you can demonstrate a good correlation between what your calculations predict and the actual results, or positions where the actual results are unknown, are relevant to verifying your calculations."
++ I posted 2 of your irrelevant positions above and my top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move, while yours did not. You deny you have a problem.
Yes, I deny I have a problem.
You have a comprehension problem.
Some of mine had mistakes, but I think it's likely that some of those with a similar think time to whatever was your average think time did not. (I've not fully checked my games against the tablebases. You're supposed to be doing that.)
If you like you can run the same set of positions I posted with the same fixed think times and we can look at how closely the error rates match. But preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run.
I posted 2 relevant positions games and again the top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move.
Good.
As I said your positions are relevant because all positions are relevant to verifying your calculations.
Now, after all that obfuscation, will you stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then the rest of us can discuss the topic.
31,536 million positions in a year @ 1000 per second. Everyone is guessing here. Don't pretend you aren't. I think there's far more work to be done than some people realise. Sorting, comparisons, etc. Assessing one position means assessing millions of positions, or haven't you worked that out? There's interchangeability but that comes at a price: that of comparing or sorting. I don't think you'll get 1000 per second and the three GMs aren't going to be good for much more than 30 per day on average between them. So forget them.
10 ^17 positions is roughly 3 x 10^7 years, or 30 million years. And 10 ^17 is an underestimate, due partly to the work that has to be done seperating your 10^17 relevant positions from the rest.
You're talking complete nonsense. Even only 10 ^17 positions at 1000 per second is rather a lot of years.