Is there agreement?

[Nimzovik]

I am curious ...which engine offers the better long term analysis....say on a 4 GBb Ram Intel Q 6600 win 64 bit XP pro machine. (or whatever machine you use to test) I am curious in say 10 min a move and 1 hour a move.... What are your subjective opinions as well............

[bhlangonijr]

I am curious ...which engine offers the better long term analysis....say on a 4 GBb Ram Intel Q 6600 win 64 bit XP pro machine. (or whatever machine you use to test) I am curious in say 10 min a move and 1 hour a move.... What are your subjective opinions as well............

A computer chess rating list would not answer you question?

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

Ie Rybka

[BBauer]

No, a rating list cannot answer this question.
Strong chess engines do a lot of pruning, they may prune the best move unnoticed. If you want the *best* move, you cannot rely on rybka or similar engines. You have to consider more moves and you may need much more time.
kind regards
Bernhard

[michiguel]

I am curious ...which engine offers the better long term analysis....say on a 4 GBb Ram Intel Q 6600 win 64 bit XP pro machine. (or whatever machine you use to test) I am curious in say 10 min a move and 1 hour a move.... What are your subjective opinions as well............

A computer chess rating list would not answer you question?

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

Ie Rybka

Engines are optimized for computer-computer competition, not for analysis. ELO is a good indicator, but not absolute. There are many things that make an engine stronger in competition that makes no difference in anaysis (e.g. time management), and viceversa (e.g. EGTBs according to some). Also, long term analysis are affected by things that you may not see in competition. For instance, two hashtables may seem similar, but one could be more efficient when it is over saturated. Having said all this, I do not have an answer for the original question

Miguel

[Nimzovik]

Sooo........... The best technique is to sit at the computer and centaur...play what if scenarios.....IDEA and Monte Carlo are ....flawed.....as they too rely on the computer engine (but may be the best we got to date, eh wot?)

[Uri Blass]

I am curious ...which engine offers the better long term analysis....say on a 4 GBb Ram Intel Q 6600 win 64 bit XP pro machine. (or whatever machine you use to test) I am curious in say 10 min a move and 1 hour a move.... What are your subjective opinions as well............

A computer chess rating list would not answer you question?

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

Ie Rybka

Engines are optimized for computer-computer competition, not for analysis. ELO is a good indicator, but not absolute. There are many things that make an engine stronger in competition that makes no difference in anaysis (e.g. time management), and viceversa (e.g. EGTBs according to some). Also, long term analysis are affected by things that you may not see in competition. For instance, two hashtables may seem similar, but one could be more efficient when it is over saturated. Having said all this, I do not have an answer for the original question

Miguel

In theory you are right and I could agree that it is not clear that rybka is the best in case of small gap but the gap between rybka and the rest is so big that I strongly believe that rybka is the best for analysis.

[Uri Blass]

No, a rating list cannot answer this question.
Strong chess engines do a lot of pruning, they may prune the best move unnoticed. If you want the *best* move, you cannot rely on rybka or similar engines. You have to consider more moves and you may need much more time.
kind regards
Bernhard

In theory you are right but practically I believe that rybka is the best.

There are many cases when you cannot be sure about the best move and having better moves than your opponents in a correspondence game is enough.

[bhlangonijr]

No, a rating list cannot answer this question.
Strong chess engines do a lot of pruning, they may prune the best move unnoticed. If you want the *best* move, you cannot rely on rybka or similar engines. You have to consider more moves and you may need much more time.
kind regards
Bernhard

He wants the best ENGINE for analysis. Not the "best" move.
Intuitively, based on rating list, I believe the best engine for analysis is also Rybka.

[bhlangonijr]

I am curious ...which engine offers the better long term analysis....say on a 4 GBb Ram Intel Q 6600 win 64 bit XP pro machine. (or whatever machine you use to test) I am curious in say 10 min a move and 1 hour a move.... What are your subjective opinions as well............

A computer chess rating list would not answer you question?

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

Ie Rybka

Engines are optimized for computer-computer competition, not for analysis. ELO is a good indicator, but not absolute. There are many things that make an engine stronger in competition that makes no difference in anaysis (e.g. time management), and viceversa (e.g. EGTBs according to some). Also, long term analysis are affected by things that you may not see in competition. For instance, two hashtables may seem similar, but one could be more efficient when it is over saturated. Having said all this, I do not have an answer for the original question

Miguel

I agree 100%.
As I do not have an absolute indicator I would rather take a "good" indicator than nothing (or only guesses).
I guess objectively it is a better answer to the original question on this thread. He is not asking the "higher truth" on this topic. Otherwise I would say "I don't know".