Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:21:06 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 15:16:56, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On August 22, 2002 at 15:15:08, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 11:13:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>You've explained why they might want to do this , but you've totally failed >>>to address the branching factor. >>> >>>You are not going to advance 2 ply in nominal depth and get a branching >>>factor of 4 *for 2 ply*. That doesn't make sense. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>Your log extract shows no evidence of any particular branching factor, much less >>a branching factor of four. Can you repost it, chopping less information? >> >>Dave > >By the way, please post all iterations for a couple of searches rather than just >two iterations for a few. I think that would make it easier to see everything >in perspective. > >Dave Here is part of the post. 2 seconds for depth 7(5) 3 seconds for depth 8(6) branching factor of 1.5 for 2 plies if you use the sum of the numbers. The point of GCP was that the branching factor was even smaller than 4. Uri 7(5) #[Qc5](0)############################################## 0 T=2 Qa5c5 pg3g4 Bh5g6 nh4g6B Pf7g6n 8(6) #[Qc5](-30)[Qc5](-30) -30v T=3 Qa5c5 pg3g4 Bh5g6 nh4g6B Pf7g6n qe1d1 Pe6e5
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.