Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Branching factor, make me confuse more that ever.

Author: leonid

Date: 14:44:03 04/04/00

Go up one level in this thread

On April 04, 2000 at 11:53:29, Tom Kerrigan wrote:

>On April 04, 2000 at 06:36:22, leonid wrote:
>>Simple things are not that simple that somebody would like to see. Recently
>>(trying to find how I must fix my branching factor) I put two counter in my game
>>(chess logic). This numbers are:
>>1) Number of all nodes that logic (chess logic) see inside of given position.
>>2) All the legal nodes (moves) that existe in all plies.
>>Deviding those two numbers I recieved 7%.
>>The same devision find already many months ago, and that worried me since, for
>>the plies starting with ply 6 and up was around 21%. Problem is that best games
>>represent proportion that is around 15%. I expect that I probably loose speed
>>between ply 2 and 10 in some 1000%.
>Possibly because you don't have a quiecence search, or extensions, or do
>iterative deepening.

Could be, even if I doubt so. Reason for this is that all those quiecence search
and extensions sound to me as the part of "partial search". If it is really so
all those new factors will only make all comparison more obscure that ever. This
is the primary reason why I tried to compare my logic on the ground on "brute
force" "fixed depth" and no extensions to lead me astray.

Partial search - search done for some plies in partial way and for other by
direct brute force. This extra plies search, in partial way, will be done only
if some factors will say that this should be done. Those extra factors could be
check, taken of the pieces and so like. This strangely resemble to the my
initial logic done many years ago for the searching for the mate. This logic I
call "quick logic". When I tried it for the first time against the other program
I had the impression that mine solve mate positions at the speed that is by 1000
superior of other chess programs. It was wrong. Only my quick logic worked very
rapidly but when comparison was done for brute force search difference was not
so dramatic. Since then I know that only logics that do both brute force search
without any "extras" that can be compared. This way you will not find the "final
truth" but you will know for sure if your basic logic reached its "raw force"
that you needed.

Since I spoke with you one month ago my logic was speeded in some 70%. Then I
expected that my old problem with "effective branching factor" was diminished. I
was wrong. This is when I started to see once again my old "effective branching
factor". Since Hyatt indicated me true name I wrote it down and try to say it
when I should.


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.