The best depth for chess analysis can vary depending on the specific situation and the purpose of the analysis. However, in general, a depth of between 14-50, as mentioned earlier, can provide a good balance between accuracy and practicality.
At a depth of 14, the engine can typically analyze several moves ahead and evaluate the resulting positions. This level of analysis can give a good sense of the immediate consequences of different moves and help in making tactical decisions. It can also identify obvious blunders or strong candidate moves.
As the depth increases, say to around 20-30, the engine can delve deeper into the position, considering more complex tactical and strategic possibilities. It can identify longer-term plans and evaluate the potential outcomes of different move sequences. This level of analysis is useful for developing an overall strategy and evaluating positional advantages.
Going even deeper, towards a depth of 40 or more, the engine can uncover even more intricate tactical and strategic possibilities. It can evaluate complex pawn structures, potential sacrifices, and deep positional maneuvers. This level of analysis can be particularly helpful in critical positions or when searching for the best move in highly complex positions.
However, it is important to note that deeper analysis comes at a cost of increased computational time and resources. Analyzing to a depth of 50 or more can take significantly longer, depending on the complexity of the position. In practical play, it may not always be feasible or necessary to analyze to such depths, especially in time-restricted situations.
In my personal experience, I have found that analyzing to a depth of around 20-30 is often sufficient for most purposes. It provides a good balance between accuracy and practicality, allowing for a thorough evaluation of the position without getting lost in overly complex variations.
To summarize, the best depth for chess analysis depends on the specific situation and purpose of the analysis. A depth of around 14-50 can provide a good range of analysis, allowing for the evaluation of tactical and strategic possibilities at various levels of complexity. However, it is important to consider the trade-off between depth and computational resources, and to find a balance that suits the practical requirements of the analysis.