nodes equivalence of engines

From my point of view there are no fast and slow searchers
There are only smart and stupid engine.

If you start from the same playing strenght(let say 2700 elo) and you double the number of nodes of smart new stockfish you probably get the same improvement that you get from multiplying the number of nodes of stupid engine like Fritz or Hiarcs or my own engine by 10(do not know if it is 7 or 13 but the idea is clear).

I wonder if people test chess engines in order to find nodes equivalence function meaning
n nodes per move of engine x is the same playing strength as f(n) nodes of engine y.

Uri Blass wrote:

From my point of view there are no fast and slow searchers
There are only smart and stupid engine.

If you start from the same playing strenght(let say 2700 elo) and you double the number of nodes of smart new stockfish you probably get the same improvement that you get from multiplying the number of nodes of stupid engine like Fritz or Hiarcs or my own engine by 10(do not know if it is 7 or 13 but the idea is clear).

I wonder if people test chess engines in order to find nodes equivalence function meaning
n nodes per move of engine x is the same playing strength as f(n) nodes of engine y.

A big problem with using node counts is that engines count them very differently.
Some engines do not count singular move extensions and some do
Some don't count hash nodes and some do
some don't count qnodes and some do
The meaning of a node for LC0 is very different from a node for Stockfish, and depth also has completely different meanings.

I think a better way to compare strength between different engines would be to use time handicaps, which are linear multiples of the stronger engine time.

Dann Corbit wrote:

Uri Blass wrote:

From my point of view there are no fast and slow searchers
There are only smart and stupid engine.

If you start from the same playing strenght(let say 2700 elo) and you double the number of nodes of smart new stockfish you probably get the same improvement that you get from multiplying the number of nodes of stupid engine like Fritz or Hiarcs or my own engine by 10(do not know if it is 7 or 13 but the idea is clear).

I wonder if people test chess engines in order to find nodes equivalence function meaning
n nodes per move of engine x is the same playing strength as f(n) nodes of engine y.

A big problem with using node counts is that engines count them very differently.
Some engines do not count singular move extensions and some do
Some don't count hash nodes and some do
some don't count qnodes and some do
The meaning of a node for LC0 is very different from a node for Stockfish, and depth also has completely different meanings.

I think a better way to compare strength between different engines would be to use time handicaps, which are linear multiples of the stronger engine time.

I see a problem with using time handicap and the problem is that you probably cannot reproduce the games and if you play the game again you may get different results.
I want results that everybody can reproduce.

My target is not to find which engine is better but to see how many elo points engines earn from doubling the fixed nodes per move that is usually equivalent to doubling the time.

I alrady have a pgn of game from fixed nodes tournament and I would like a tool to check that every game appears even number of times inside the pgn.

Uri Blass wrote:

Dann Corbit wrote:

Uri Blass wrote:

From my point of view there are no fast and slow searchers
There are only smart and stupid engine.

If you start from the same playing strenght(let say 2700 elo) and you double the number of nodes of smart new stockfish you probably get the same improvement that you get from multiplying the number of nodes of stupid engine like Fritz or Hiarcs or my own engine by 10(do not know if it is 7 or 13 but the idea is clear).

I wonder if people test chess engines in order to find nodes equivalence function meaning
n nodes per move of engine x is the same playing strength as f(n) nodes of engine y.

A big problem with using node counts is that engines count them very differently.
Some engines do not count singular move extensions and some do
Some don't count hash nodes and some do
some don't count qnodes and some do
The meaning of a node for LC0 is very different from a node for Stockfish, and depth also has completely different meanings.

I think a better way to compare strength between different engines would be to use time handicaps, which are linear multiples of the stronger engine time.

I see a problem with using time handicap and the problem is that you probably cannot reproduce the games and if you play the game again you may get different results.
I want results that everybody can reproduce.

My target is not to find which engine is better but to see how many elo points engines earn from doubling the fixed nodes per move that is usually equivalent to doubling the time.

I alrady have a pgn of game from fixed nodes tournament and I would like a tool to check that every game appears even number of times inside the pgn.

I think the problem with this: "My target is not to find which engine is better but to see how many elo points engines earn from doubling the fixed nodes per move that is usually equivalent to doubling the time."
Is that an engine might take one thousand times longer to calculate a node than another. So the real ratio of strength is not calculated.
I think your method only calculates effective branching factor (which is, of course, a very useful calculation)

Dann Corbit wrote:

Uri Blass wrote:

Dann Corbit wrote:

Uri Blass wrote:

From my point of view there are no fast and slow searchers
There are only smart and stupid engine.

If you start from the same playing strenght(let say 2700 elo) and you double the number of nodes of smart new stockfish you probably get the same improvement that you get from multiplying the number of nodes of stupid engine like Fritz or Hiarcs or my own engine by 10(do not know if it is 7 or 13 but the idea is clear).

I wonder if people test chess engines in order to find nodes equivalence function meaning
n nodes per move of engine x is the same playing strength as f(n) nodes of engine y.

A big problem with using node counts is that engines count them very differently.
Some engines do not count singular move extensions and some do
Some don't count hash nodes and some do
some don't count qnodes and some do
The meaning of a node for LC0 is very different from a node for Stockfish, and depth also has completely different meanings.

I think a better way to compare strength between different engines would be to use time handicaps, which are linear multiples of the stronger engine time.

I see a problem with using time handicap and the problem is that you probably cannot reproduce the games and if you play the game again you may get different results.
I want results that everybody can reproduce.

My target is not to find which engine is better but to see how many elo points engines earn from doubling the fixed nodes per move that is usually equivalent to doubling the time.

I alrady have a pgn of game from fixed nodes tournament and I would like a tool to check that every game appears even number of times inside the pgn.

I think the problem with this: "My target is not to find which engine is better but to see how many elo points engines earn from doubling the fixed nodes per move that is usually equivalent to doubling the time."
Is that an engine might take one thousand times longer to calculate a node than another.  So the real ratio of strength is not calculated.
I think your method only calculates effective branching factor (which is, of course, a very useful calculation)

The same engine may calculate nodes with a different speed but usually searching twice more nodes by an engine means that the engine use twice more time even if not exactly twice more time.