Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 12:14:00 04/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
>You forget that you have a branching factor of 100 at the root is ex. 1 and one >of 10 in ex. 2. > >Using "my" definition, it isn't very different: >ex.1: 3.50 >ex.2: 2.52 ok, not MUCH different. Am sorry about being too much conclusive in my reply, but I just saw it strange. Now I could like the formula, but only at high depths. Anyway I think is better b=(n-(n at depth 1))^(1/d-1), what do you think? Ouch I see you really have a high branching factor. can you supply the position of that search? Antonio... >But all the things about mobility are not relevant, because I compare two >identical positions, one searched with and one without iterative deepening. > >a practical example from my prog (with bad move sorting): >N: nodes in normal search >Q: nodes in quiescence search >H: number of successful hash access' > >with iterative deepening: >1 ply Sb1-c3 N: 43 Q: 15 H: 0 Value: 5 >2 ply Lf1-b5+ N: 462 Q: 323 H: 9 Value: -1 >3 ply e4xd5 N: 2695 Q: 3074 H: 106 Value: 2 >4 ply e4-e5 N: 24624 Q: 20999 H: 877 Value: -5 >5 ply e4xd5 N: 104066 Q: 92941 H: 4173 Value: 1 > >b = 10.08 (I've calculated it only with the nodes in normal search) > >without iterative deepening: >5 ply e4xd5 N: 148437 Q: 127757 H: 2995 Value: 1 > >b = 10.82 > >Rafael B. Andrist
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.