Author: Dan Andersson

Date: 03:05:38 06/20/03

Go up one level in this thread

On June 20, 2003 at 05:41:04, Dan Andersson wrote: > I tried to look at it in a new way. Reflect upon this: > d(t) is the depth reached by the perfectly ordered tree were t is nodes or >time. > dm(t) is the depth of the minimax tree. > dm(t)=2*d(t) > di(t,k) is a tree in the middle. > di(t,k)=(1+k)*d(t) k is in [0, 1] > di(t,k1)<di(t,k2) iff k1<k2 di(t,k1)<di(t,k2) iff k2<k1 > what properties does di have? > The gain is linear to search depth. A doubling in search depth gives a doubling >in gained depth. 2*di(t,k2)-2*di(t,k1)=2(1+k2)*d(t)-2*(1+k1)*d(t)=2*(k2-k1)*d(t) > The gain is constant to time. A doubling in time gives a constant addition in >gained depth. (k2-k1)*(d(2*t)-d(t))=(k2-k1)*constant since d is a logarithic >function of t. > This might also be horribly wrong. Feel free to comment. Very tired right now :) Only problem with this analysis is that k is not defined properly. But if move ordering is close to perfect this won't matter for reasonable search depths. Then k will be close to zero anyway. Maybe I'll lok into that after some sleep. > >MvH Dan Andersson

- Re: A new look.
**Dan Andersson***03:32:48 06/20/03*- Re: A new look.
**Dan Andersson***06:52:49 06/20/03*

- Re: A new look.

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.