Answers.Body: <p>In the chessbase cloud, this depth 79 evaluation is displayed:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/PEKkx.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/PEKkx.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Which means someone used Chessbase to get their Stockfish 12 engine to calculate to depth 79, and they had an internet connection at the time so it was able to be stored on the cloud. However, there are some caveats:</p>
  <ol>
  <li>We don't know the engine settings that this person was using -- although I doubt this matters much though for the calculation time required, relatively speaking.</li>
  <li>There could have been a deeper search done by someone, who either wasn't connected to the cloud at the time, or maybe wasn't even using Chessbase at all.</li>
  <li>Chessbase might have an even higher depth evaluation stored in its cloud for Stockfish, but they just choose to show this depth 79 one (I don't know how this works).</li>
  </ol>
  <p>But all in all, depth 79 seems like a good ballpark at the very least.</p>
  <p>Also as @TonyK mentioned, Stockfish depth is in plies (so depth 79 refers to roughly 40 moves). Also Stockfish does very aggressive pruning. An exhaustive depth 79 search would involve something on the order of 30^79 nodes.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T12:58:12.837Z
Answers.Text: For reference: 30^79 is a 116 digit number. The number of atoms in the universe is estimated to a number with around 80 digits.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Nzall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T21:22:36.807Z
Answers.Text: For those of us who are chess novices, In the suggested d4 and e4 lines I'm curious what opening line it's following and at what move the first novelty appears.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Chuu
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T23:28:29.453Z
Answers.Text: @Chuu [1.e4 e6 Advanced French](https://lichess.org/undgWoEb#14); and [1.d4 Semi-Slav from QGD](https://lichess.org/7ISvCb7H#13)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mateen Ulhaq
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T23:40:23.313Z
Answers.Text: An exhaustive search over 30^79 nodes would confirm that Chessbase users are interdimensional beings capable of [great computational feats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_performance_by_orders_of_magnitude#Beyond_zettascale_computing_\(%3E1021\)). For comparison, a brute-force minimax over [all of chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number) requires roughly the same number of nodes.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mateen Ulhaq
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-03T22:39:45.660Z
Answers.Text: Is it possible to know how long did that evaluation take?
Answers.UserDisplayName: ihavenoidea
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-04T06:34:46.660Z
Answers.Text: @ihavenoidea Unfortunately no, at least no way I'm aware of.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T06:55:33.910Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-25T17:10:07.560Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-11-25T17:10:07.560Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.Body: <p>Don't for one minute imagine that Stockfish has analysed all lines out to 30 plies (yes, that's plies, not moves). It has analysed <em>some</em> lines up to 30 plies, but most lines have been discarded well below that depth as being unproductive. Occasionally it will erroneously discard productive lines, but Stockfish being Stockfish, this doesn't happen very often.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T06:36:13.723Z
Answers.Text: Good point mentioning the 10^30 tree is way too big for a fully complete search. But this should probably be a comment.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T10:03:51.553Z
Answers.Text: Would be interesting to have a position where only few moves are possible for both sides all the time (and many can be pruned due to definite loss). Think of a fast tablebase "in situ".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T10:52:16.267Z
Answers.Text: @InertialIgnorance - Just to be picky, when we're talking on orders of magnitude as big as x^30... x being off by a factor of 3 is basically negligible
Answers.UserDisplayName: ScottishTapWater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T11:06:40.577Z
Answers.Text: @ScottishTapWater 30^30 / 10^30 is about 200 trillion though.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T11:35:41.587Z
Answers.Text: Ahh yeah no, you're right... I was thrown off by it being 30^30 not 30 x 10^30... This actually results in being off by a factor of 3^30 so not so negligible afterall
Answers.UserDisplayName: ScottishTapWater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-04T03:32:51.180Z
Answers.Text: And it looks like it incorrectly discarded 1. e4 as well.  1. d4 can't possibly be better :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: JK.
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-01T00:03:43.733Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-01T00:03:43.733Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: TonyK
Body: <p>Letting Stockfish (14+ NNUE) run for several minutes with lichess' analysis tool on the initial position of a standard chess board lets it reach depths beyond 30 moves, I suppose letting it run for many hours or days would result in an even deeper evaluation.</p>
  <p>What is the deepest evaluation ever done of this kind?</p>
  
Tags: <engines><analysis><solving>
Title: What is the deepest Stockfish evaluation of the standard initial position that has ever been done?
ThreadText: # What is the deepest Stockfish evaluation of the standard initial position that has ever been done?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-31)
  
  Letting Stockfish (14+ NNUE) run for several minutes with lichess' analysis tool on the initial position of a standard chess board lets it reach depths beyond 30 moves, I suppose letting it run for many hours or days would result in an even deeper evaluation.
  
  What is the deepest evaluation ever done of this kind?
  
  **Tags:** engines, analysis, solving
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2022-11-01. Score: 22
  
  In the chessbase cloud, this depth 79 evaluation is displayed:
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/PEKkx.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/PEKkx.jpg)
  
  Which means someone used Chessbase to get their Stockfish 12 engine to calculate to depth 79, and they had an internet connection at the time so it was able to be stored on the cloud. However, there are some caveats:
  
  1. We don't know the engine settings that this person was using -- although I doubt this matters much though for the calculation time required, relatively speaking.
  2. There could have been a deeper search done by someone, who either wasn't connected to the cloud at the time, or maybe wasn't even using Chessbase at all.
  3. Chessbase might have an even higher depth evaluation stored in its cloud for Stockfish, but they just choose to show this depth 79 one (I don't know how this works).
  
  But all in all, depth 79 seems like a good ballpark at the very least.
  
  Also as @username_6 mentioned, Stockfish depth is in plies (so depth 79 refers to roughly 40 moves). Also Stockfish does very aggressive pruning. An exhaustive depth 79 search would involve something on the order of 30^79 nodes.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: For reference: 30^79 is a 116 digit number. The number of atoms in the universe is estimated to a number with around 80 digits.  
  > **username_3**: For those of us who are chess novices, In the suggested d4 and e4 lines I'm curious what opening line it's following and at what move the first novelty appears.  
  > **username_4**: @username_3 [1.e4 e6 Advanced French](https://lichess.org/undgWoEb#14); and [1.d4 Semi-Slav from QGD](https://lichess.org/7ISvCb7H#13)  
  > **username_4**: An exhaustive search over 30^79 nodes would confirm that Chessbase users are interdimensional beings capable of [great computational feats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_performance_by_orders_of_magnitude#Beyond_zettascale_computing_\(%3E1021\)). For comparison, a brute-force minimax over [all of chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number) requires roughly the same number of nodes.  
  > **username_5**: Is it possible to know how long did that evaluation take?  
  > **username_1**: @username_5 Unfortunately no, at least no way I'm aware of.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2022-11-01. Score: 17
  
  Don't for one minute imagine that Stockfish has analysed all lines out to 30 plies (yes, that's plies, not moves). It has analysed *some* lines up to 30 plies, but most lines have been discarded well below that depth as being unproductive. Occasionally it will erroneously discard productive lines, but Stockfish being Stockfish, this doesn't happen very often.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Good point mentioning the 10^30 tree is way too big for a fully complete search. But this should probably be a comment.  
  > **username_7**: Would be interesting to have a position where only few moves are possible for both sides all the time (and many can be pruned due to definite loss). Think of a fast tablebase "in situ".  
  > **username_8**: @username_1 - Just to be picky, when we're talking on orders of magnitude as big as x^30... x being off by a factor of 3 is basically negligible  
  > **username_1**: @username_8 30^30 / 10^30 is about 200 trillion though.  
  > **username_8**: Ahh yeah no, you're right... I was thrown off by it being 30^30 not 30 x 10^30... This actually results in being off by a factor of 3^30 so not so negligible afterall  
  > **username_9**: And it looks like it incorrectly discarded 1. e4 as well.  1. d4 can't possibly be better :)  
  
  ---
  
  