Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:06:19 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 23:13:26, Christophe Theron wrote: <snipped> >The question of the branching factor is a crucial one indeed, and as far as I >know it is the only reason that could explain that a program needs faster >hardware or longer time controls. > >For example, Genius has an horrible branching factor, which is the reason why it >is still good at blitz (well at least on slower computers) and so bad at long >time controls on current hardware. > >I think that it should be possible to back up claims that a given program needs >faster hardware or longer time controls by measuring its branching factor. If a >program has a much better branching factor that the other ones, then it is a >strong indication that it will be superior as time controls and/or processor >power increases. > >Any volunteers? If you get a smaller branching factor from a right pruning idea then you made an improvement for long time control but it is also possible that you got a smaller branching factor by pruning some logical moves and in this case the smaller branching factor is counter productive. It is also possible that you get a bigger branching factor from adding some extensions and the extensions may be productive at long time control. I think that the main problem of Ganius(at least Genius3) is not enough extensions at long time control and not an horrible branching factor. I know that Genius3 never extends more than 12 plies. Genius3 from my experience has typical branching factor of 3-4 even at long time control and my experience with hiarcs says that the branching factor of hiarcs at long time control is clearly bigger. It may be one of the reason that hiarcs is weaker at long time control and the other reason is the learning bug that I found. Uri
This page took 0 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.