I was away from the forum for a while, but I remember how all this started. It was about CCT. Please correct me If I am wrong. At the beginning some manual operators were allowed but then everybody move away from that.hgm wrote:Well, that would in principle run into the same problem at level 2, that by the time all moves have bean searched there, the tree from the search of the PV move might be overwritten. At some depth of course this will be no longer true, as the entire PV tree will fit easily in the hash. But it depends on the TC at which level this works.
The easiest solution would be to implement the triangualr-array method. But actually I think this is beyond what is reasonable to request. If it was about thata that the engine naturally has, I would be happy to print it. But having to add code to emulate how another engine would do it, only to satisfy a request for output that in itself has nothing to do with playing Chess goes a bridge too far. Micro-Max is a project for making the smallest Chess-playing program, not the smallest PV-printing program. If that makes it not welcome on certain tournaments, so be it.
Micro-Max is a deterministic engine, highly insensitive to timing jitter as it finishes each iteration, And it kibitzes depth. So if there would be any doubt with the organizer that some other entity that micro-Max was making the moves, it could be easily and objectively verified.
Kibitzing was a way to show that the engine was in an automated mode with no (obvious) intervention from the operator. In other words, the requirement should be that the engine should show whatever information is normally available for the user. In my opinion, in µMax's case, plies searched, nodes, time, and evaluation should be enough. For instance, if an "out of the norm" engine has an evaluation in % of chances of winning, it should not be converted to centipawns just to look like the rest.
It is nice to see what the other engine is thinking, in its own way!
Miguel
