Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:33:48 04/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2000 at 00:06:03, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On April 01, 2000 at 13:38:00, leonid wrote: > >>Hello! >> >>Maybe you could take me out of my endless confusion about "branching factor". >>Confusion come from the way that you can compare two different games. Would like >>your help in finding useful numbers about this factor. > >You are taking a totally different approach to computer chess than everybody >else in the world. > >You are driving a boat when everybody else is driving a car. > >This is fine, but the problem is that you are insisting on comparing your boat >to everybody's car. You're trying to equate sail size to wheel diameter. It's >possible, but it couldn't be more useless. > >Your program does not do quiescence searches, it does not do extensions, it >probably doesn't do iterative deepening, etc. Comparing your program to other >programs which DO have these features is not productive. > >Until you decide to add these features, you should simply concentrate on >improving your program and not worry about what other people are doing. > >If you have to know, here's how you can compute your branching factor: count how >many moves you search at each node. Divide by the number of nodes. > >-Tom That's not 'branching factor'. that is "effective branching factor". Because at many nodes you search 1 branch, but there are obviously many more moves there that _could_ be searched... this has been a source of confusion almost forever...
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.