Computer analysis - 1

Sort:
KittyA

"Gold:  2 Computer Analysis per week / search depth of 10 ply estimated at 2200 strength."

This is my membership level.  I don't understand any of this.  What is 10 ply?  What is 2200 strength? 

Thank you in advance.

Loomis

A ply is a half a move. A full move is one move by white, one by black. 10 ply is 10 half moves, or 5 full moves.

 

2200 refers to rating. Who knows what rating scale the computer is being estimated on. (FIDE? chess.com?)

KittyA
Loomis wrote:

A ply is a half a move. A full move is one move by white, one by black. 10 ply is 10 half moves, or 5 full moves.

 

2200 refers to rating. Who knows what rating scale the computer is being estimated on. (FIDE? chess.com?)


 So, what does a search depth of 10 ply mean, Loomis?  The computer made comments on more than that.  It gave me:

Inaccuracies: 5 = 15.6% of moves
Mistakes: 6 = 18.8% of moves
Blunders: 2 = 6.2% of moves

Loomis

"Computers score a game in units of pawns. The score is a combination of material count and positional count. The computer tries to figure out the best sequence of moves for each side by evaluating the resulting positions at the end of the sequence. The score for the current position is the evaluation of the best play for both sides at the end of a certain depth."

That was my response to you in one of your other threads. It explains the meaning of depth.

(Incidentally, it may have been easier to have a single thread for all this.)

KittyA

Okay, Loomis.  I just thought it would be easier this way.  As I mentioned in a previous post, this is my medium of work and it's the way I keep things separated there.  However, my classrooms are like newsgroups, not like blogs.  If it's easier in this situation to post everything together, I'll certainly do so in the future.  Thank you for this posting information! :)

"(Incidentally, it may have been easier to have a single thread for all this.)"

Loomis

Nothing wrong with posting separate things in separate threads. It just so happened in this case that all your questions were intimately related to each other.

KittyA
Loomis wrote:

Nothing wrong with posting separate things in separate threads. It just so happened in this case that all your questions were intimately related to each other.


 Gotcha! :)  You see, to me they were completely separate issues; to you, who knew the answers, you could see them as parts of a whole.  I guess that's also the difference between an experienced chess player and a novice (which I am).  I see chess in parts and am trying to learn to view the whole picture; you, undoubtedly, see the whole picture without anywhere near the difficulty I have.  One of these days if I keep working at it... :)

justice_avocado

someday computers will rule the world

KittyA
justice_avocado wrote:

someday computers will rule the world


 

Don't they already, Justice?  How often have you been told by a human that it was a "computer error" that caused the problem?  Humans have no control over these computers; the computers err when they wish and don't make the changes the humans insist they're causing the computers to make!  Computers definitely have minds of their own!  My, how you've missed the changing world. :)))))  (Please note my laughie.)