Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:45:25 02/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2002 at 10:30:15, Tony Werten wrote: >>So it would seem, but the search is exponential and not linear. >>I think you should not consider the "depth" but rather the number of nodes >>searched. > >Doesn't make a difference. Depth and number of nodes are the "same". Not at all, nodes is an exponential function of depth. >>If you go one ply deeper then (assuming your branch factor (BF) is not too depth >>dependent) you a factor of BF more nodes, this ratio is fairly constant so I'd >>go with Uri's definition. > >Ok, have it your way. in 4-3 you give BF/3BF advantage and in 5-4 you give >BF/4BF advantage. I do not understand your ratios, if you mean: nodes(ply n+1) ~= BF*nodes(ply n) then we agree. >The ratio is constant, but the added percentage isn't. > >New example: distance 100 miles. >10 Mph=> 10 h >20 Mph=> 5 h >30 Mph=> 3.3 h >40 Mph=> 2.5 h > >New paper. Diminishing returns in carspeed ? :) This is correct, but not related to our discussion. These are linear relations, not exponential. >Tony > >> >>The diminishing returns issue is probably an effect of converging towards the >>ideal move as often as possible. >> >>-S.
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.