In the last link of above:
LK: "For now, I can give you one clear use. Let's say that you are analyzing some position in two variation mode on Rybka 3, and you want to know the best move. If the two choices show as almost the same value (let's say 1 or 2 centipawns different), then run the MC on the two positions arising after each of those two moves, at whatever depth will allow you a few hundred games in the time you want to allot for this. If the MC shows a much better score for one position than the other, it is probably a better move."
AS: "How sure are you that this is better than flipping a coin?"
LK: "99%. The one percent doubt is because I haven't spent that much time with MC yet."
Given that KLO and I compiled rather distinct MC results at 10 and 12 ply for the main position of this thread (
c6c5 won easily at 10 ply, while
h7h6 won almost as easily at 12 ply), there probably needs to be more codification of its exact acumen
Slightly before that exchange:
LK: "Each extra ply beyond five nearly doubles the time, so cuts the sample size in half for any set time. In general, I would go with bigger sample size given this tradeoff, at least up to a couple hundred games. Of course for overnight analysis you can use much deeper searches and still get big samples."
[I really miss LK's opinion/insights (even if I disagree often)].
More discussion appears in:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=5030
A quasi-technical post is:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?pid=78794
VZ: "2) Some work at the root of the tree GUI makes itself. It is really more effective than to run the same moves from root position again and again. [...] The major difference of IDeA method that it builds tree evaluating positions while Monte-Carlo gathers statistics. In most cases evaluating is more right way. But there are number of positions with long play where Randomizer can give interesting results."
A pre-R3 discussion is:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=3061
