Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:54:11 06/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2001 at 04:09:29, Rafael Andrist wrote: >On June 23, 2001 at 22:24:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 23, 2001 at 20:02:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>> >>>I do not know much details on schach, but if you give it an entire >>>night, then it still will show the same bad branching factor as >>>we were used to in 1997. >> >> >>What in the name of heaven are you talking about? "bad branching factor >>we were used to in 1997?" In 1996 I was using R=2 null-move, as was Bruce >>and others. _we_ were not used to any huge branching factor. My branching >>factor today is almost _exactly_ what it was in 1996... >> >> >>My branching factor also remains fairly constant regardless of the depth. >>It makes no sense to me that it would get smaller and smaller as you go >>deeper. Because eventually it would have to go below 1 and the search >>would actually get _faster_ as you go deeper. And that is fully nonsense. >> > >But the BF get's clearly smaller if the search goes deeper. At least with a >full-window-search. It's also clear that this process isn't linear. So your >second argument that it would ge below zero is nonsense itself. We live in a >completly non-linear world! > >Rafael B. Andrist I don't have any data for searches beyond 15 plies in the middlegame, but for the 350 or so searches I have, I don't see the BF as better from 14->15 than it is for 12->13... I don't see why it would be so either. unless you assume infinite everything like hash table size, etc.
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.