Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 09:15:09 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 12:04:05, Rafael Andrist wrote: >On April 23, 2001 at 11:43:33, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>A branching factor around 9 is too high for an alphabeta-search even without >>prunning and without hashtable. Why are you using infinite window? try using >>small and null windows and see what happen first. >>Anyway you say "The use of Iterative Deepening didn't change much" so before how >>you calculated the branching factor? The definition I use is nodes iteration >>x+1/nodes iteration x, if you are using the other definition that I don't >>renember wich is, please forgive my unusefull post. > >I calculate a virtual branching factor, which is the same for each depth (in >reality, it's different). > >b := branching factor >d := depth >n := nodes > >b = n ^ (1 / d) > >so b ^ d gives n > >[the ^ means the power function, not the ANSI-Xor] > >Rafael B. Andrist This is a weird way because is difficult to compare things isn't? suppose the root position has a lot of mobility and possible moves(72) imagine this: [1] 100 [2] 200 [3] 400 [4] 800 [5] 1600 [6] 3200 [7] 6400 and a position with a low mobility in the root, imagine this: [1] 10 [2] 20 [3] 40 [4] 80 [5] 160 [6] 320 [7] 640 using the def I use it's factor 2 in both cases, seems fine. But using yours it turns veeeeery weird and different.
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.