At what depth that is do more harm than good to Komodo or Stockfish?

[Chessqueen]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

[Chessqueen]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Playing at depth = 40

[pgn][Event "Depth = 40"]
[Site "MININT-UB2PIMJ"]
[Date "2021.09.26"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dragon-2.5-64bit-avx2"]
[Black "Stockfish_14_x64_bmi2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackElo "3640"]
[ECO "C50"]
[Opening "Giuoco Pianissimo"]
[Time "10:47:08"]
[Variation "Italian Four Knights"]
[WhiteElo "3600"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "134"]
[WhiteType "program"]
[BlackType "program"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Nc3 h6 6. h3 a6 7. a4 Ba7 8.
Rb1 d6 9. Be3 O-O 10. Bxa7 Nxa7 11. O-O Be6 12. Bxe6 fxe6 13. d4 Nc6 14.
Qd3 exd4 15. Nxd4 Qe8 16. Qc4 Nxd4 17. Qxd4 Qc6 18. e5 dxe5 19. Qxe5 Nd5
20. Nxd5 exd5 21. Rbd1 Rad8 22. c3 Rfe8 23. Qd4 Rd6 24. Rde1 b6 25. Rxe8+
Qxe8 26. a5 bxa5 27. Qc5 Qb5 28. Qxc7 Rf6 29. b4 axb4 30. cxb4 Qxb4 31.
Qd8+ Rf8 32. Qxd5+ Kh8 33. Ra1 Rxf2 34. Rxa6 Rf8 35. Ra8 Qb1+ 36. Kh2 Rxa8
37. Qxa8+ Kh7 38. Qe8 Qf5 39. Qe2 Qf4+ 40. g3 Qf5 41. Kg2 Qg6 42. h4 h5 43.
Kh3 Qf5+ 44. Kh2 Qd5 45. Qc2+ Kh6 46. Qf2 Qe4 47. Kg1 Kh7 48. Qf1 Qe6 49.
Kh2 Qa2+ 50. Kh3 Qe6+ 51. Kh2 Qe4 52. Kg1 Qe3+ 53. Kh2 Qd2+ 54. Kh3 Qd5 55.
Qe1 Qf3 56. Kh2 g6 57. Qe7+ Kh6 58. Qg5+ Kh7 59. Qd2 Qe4 60. Qf2 Qe5 61.
Qd2 Qe7 62. Qa2 Qb7 63. Qe2 Qf7 64. Kg2 Qd5+ 65. Kh2 Qf7 66. Kg2 Qd5+ 67.
Kh2 Qf7 {3-fold repetition} 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

[mvanthoor]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but prunings and evaluations.

[Chessqueen]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.
Sorry but Gazillion is a word that sounds like it’s a number but actually it is NOT a Number

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but prunings and evaluations.

[Sopel]

Depth is an implementation detail. It's sad that UCI expoes it.

[Uri Blass]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but prunings and evaluations.

I do not think the poster meant to test strength of the engine.
I see no reason to be against testing at fixed depth or with different time control or different depth for engines.

[Chessqueen]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but pruning and evaluations.

I do not think the poster meant to test strength of the engine.
I see no reason to be against testing at fixed depth or with different time control or different depth for engines.

Mr. Uri thanks for making clear what I meant, I also wanted to know if after top engines reaches certain Depth let say above 40 if it benefit the outcome or it makes poor assumption of thinking that the opponent will always make the best move, the question of what this is equivalent to in terms of other programs, e.g. a null-mover with "standard" extensions, but what if it does NOT make the best move beyond depth 40 ?

[lkaufman]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but pruning and evaluations.

I do not think the poster meant to test strength of the engine.
I see no reason to be against testing at fixed depth or with different time control or different depth for engines.

Mr. Uri thanks for making clear what I meant, I also wanted to know if after top engines reaches certain Depth let say above 40 if it benefit the outcome or it makes poor assumption of thinking that the opponent will always make the best move, the question of what this is equivalent to in terms of other programs, e.g. a null-mover with "standard" extensions, but what if it does NOT make the best move beyond depth 40 ?

Looking deeper is always beneficial against an opponent of the same class; if opponent looks 40 plies deep, we will score better looking 43 plies deep rather than 42. But against a vastly weaker opponent, say one looking 12 plies deep, it doesn't seem to help to outsearch him by more than about a dozen plies, so going from 24 to 36 or 48 plies won't help, even seems to hurt. But that's not measurable in standard chess, either version will score 100% (to nearest percentage point). We can only test that by handicap play. I have tested it in normal play with no change in win percentage (like 99.7% or so), but the statistical margin of error is too large even for thousands of games that way. With knight odds peak results on one thread for Dragon 2.5 seem to be at depth 23, probably would be depth 22 on four threads.

[Chessqueen]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but pruning and evaluations.

I do not think the poster meant to test strength of the engine.
I see no reason to be against testing at fixed depth or with different time control or different depth for engines.

Mr. Uri thanks for making clear what I meant, I also wanted to know if after top engines reaches certain Depth let say above 40 if it benefit the outcome or it makes poor assumption of thinking that the opponent will always make the best move, the question of what this is equivalent to in terms of other programs, e.g. a null-mover with "standard" extensions, but what if it does NOT make the best move beyond depth 40 ?

Looking deeper is always beneficial against an opponent of the same class; if opponent looks 40 plies deep, we will score better looking 43 plies deep rather than 42. But against a vastly weaker opponent, say one looking 12 plies deep, it doesn't seem to help to outsearch him by more than about a dozen plies, so going from 24 to 36 or 48 plies won't help, even seems to hurt. But that's not measurable in standard chess, either version will score 100% (to nearest percentage point). We can only test that by handicap play. I have tested it in normal play with no change in win percentage (like 99.7% or so), but the statistical margin of error is too large even for thousands of games that way. With knight odds peak results on one thread for Dragon 2.5 seem to be at depth 23, probably would be depth 22 on four threads.

I noticed after 7 games at depth =40 between Dragon 2.5 vs Stockfish 14 that even if the score is even so far at 3.5, at Depth = 40 that Dragon 2.5 take 3 minutes per move to reach depth 40 while Stockfish 14 only needs 1 minutes, therefore, when playing Blitz or Rapid chess Stockfish 14 is the King, but for Correspondence players Dragon 2.5 might be of a greatest help since it plays more like Top GM 's and given plenty of time to analyze a position and with the help of the correspondence World champion, well the choice of engine might be to have both analyzing the same position and at the end the human will choose the best move which might not be either Dragon 2.5 nor Dragon move, but certanly both engine can help the world correspondence champion determine which is the candidate move

[Chessqueen]

We all know that Stockfish is much faster than Komodo Dragon, and therefore reaches a higher depth when paired at Bullets versus Komodo Dragon 2.5, but if a match was set to play at at pre determine depth lets say depth = 45 for both engines what engines would play better

Sometimes I wonder if you actually try to think about the gazillion questions you post.

If you set a fixed depth, you negate engine speed and time control. If it doesn't matter how long it takes to reach depth 45, it would even be best to omit any pruning, so the engine doesn't ever miss a tactic. In that case, the engines see the exact same positions to the exact same depth. So, the strongest one will be the one with the best evaluation. If you don't omit pruning, the engine which prunes the least has the ability to see more tactical shots, which would add strength to that engine.

When setting a fixed depth, you're not testing a chess engine, but pruning and evaluations.

I do not think the poster meant to test strength of the engine.
I see no reason to be against testing at fixed depth or with different time control or different depth for engines.

Mr. Uri thanks for making clear what I meant, I also wanted to know if after top engines reaches certain Depth let say above 40 if it benefit the outcome or it makes poor assumption of thinking that the opponent will always make the best move, the question of what this is equivalent to in terms of other programs, e.g. a null-mover with "standard" extensions, but what if it does NOT make the best move beyond depth 40 ?

Looking deeper is always beneficial against an opponent of the same class; if opponent looks 40 plies deep, we will score better looking 43 plies deep rather than 42. But against a vastly weaker opponent, say one looking 12 plies deep, it doesn't seem to help to outsearch him by more than about a dozen plies, so going from 24 to 36 or 48 plies won't help, even seems to hurt. But that's not measurable in standard chess, either version will score 100% (to nearest percentage point). We can only test that by handicap play. I have tested it in normal play with no change in win percentage (like 99.7% or so), but the statistical margin of error is too large even for thousands of games that way. With knight odds peak results on one thread for Dragon 2.5 seem to be at depth 23, probably would be depth 22 on four threads.

I noticed after 7 games at depth =40 between Dragon 2.5 vs Stockfish 14 that even if the score is even so far at 3.5, at Depth = 40 that Dragon 2.5 take 3 minutes per move to reach depth 40 while Stockfish 14 only needs 1 minute, therefore, when playing Blitz or Rapid chess Stockfish 14 is the King, but for Correspondence players Dragon 2.5 might be of a greatest help since it plays more like Top GM 's and given plenty of time to analyze a position and with the help of the correspondence World champion, well the choice of engine might be to have both analyzing the same position up to depth 80 or 100 if possible and at the end the human will choose the best move which might not be either Dragon 2.5 nor Stockfish 14 move, but certainly both engines can help the world correspondence champion determine which is the candidate move. also make me wonder at what depth will chess be solved with perfect play from both sides like checkers https://www.chess.com/news/view/compute ... chess-next

Rank Engine Score Dr St S-B
1 Dragon-2.5-64bit-avx2 5.0/10 · ·· ·· ·· ·· ========== 25.00
1 Stockfish_14_x64_bmi2 5.0/10 ========== · ·· ·· ·· ·· 25.00


10 games played / Tournament is finished

Tournament start: 2021.09.27, 08:45:25
Latest update: 2021.09.27, 13:02:03
Site/ Country: MININT-UB2PIMJ, United States
Level: 40 Half moves
Hardware: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz with 15.9 GB Memory
Operating system: Windows 10 Enterprise Professional (Build 9200) 64 bit
PGN-File: Dragon 2.5.pgn
Table created with: Arena 3.5.1