Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:08:21 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2003 at 10:00:36, Dan Andersson wrote: > How could you ever get a measure of the minimal graph if you disregard >transpositions? A-B withot memory is just a curio. One way of looking at >transpositions is as compression. I disagree Dan. All compression i know compresses lineair. Hashtables would compress now exponential which is pretty funny form of compression. We can of course mention that hashtables can cause 3 effects and personally i don't care in favour of which you are a) hashtables improve branching factor b) hashtables effectively make the number of average moves less in a position c) hashtables shorten the search depth needed to get to depth n. In DIEP around 1996-1997 extensive experiments conducted with DIEP, my average branching factor was 4.2 with hashtables. Also i counted the number of average moves in a position (not counting positions where king is in check as those get extended anyway) which was to my big surprise nearly exactly 40. And not 35 as theory indicates (note that counting the incheck positions would bring down that 40 back to 39.xx or so). It's easy to calculate what an average number of moves = 40 causes for minimal branching factor to get 1 ply deeper when not using hashtables: sqrt 40 = 6.3 Now my 4.2 was not a minimal branching factor but *practical* branching factor. Most likely that 6.3 is in reality 9.0 Best regards, Vincent >MvH Dan Andersson
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.