Author: Rafael Andrist
Date: 03:04:18 04/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2001 at 15:14:00, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >>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.