Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:18:58 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 15:21:06, Uri Blass wrote: >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 When someone quantizes time to 1 second, you do _not_ make real analysis based on time units of 1-2 seconds. The shortest time I would use is say 10 seconds to get the error from quantization to 1 sec down to something acceptable.
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.