Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:21:10 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2001 at 02:28:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 05, 2001 at 02:10:32, Christophe Theron wrote: >[snip] >>Yes it's the classical explanation of this theory of "search vs knowledge", but >>as far as I know you do not need an enormous k2 and k3 to get the best branching >>factor that can be achieved nowadays. >> >>And if you have a huge k2, I can predict that your program is going to be >>criticized for being a root processor! :) >> >>It might happen some day that we find some expensive way of achieving better >>branching factors, but at this time we do not need to slow down the nps rate >>(even in a very fast searcher) in order to get state-of-the-art branching >>factors. > >How do you know that Stefan Meyer-Kahlen has not achieved this in Shredder (IOW: >maybe he _has_ achieved a branching factor better than anyone else by ludicrous >gobs of knowledge). Based on my experience with shredder the branching factor of shredder is similiar to the branching factor of other programs. 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.