Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:15:49 10/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 02, 2003 at 21:14:31, Dann Corbit wrote: >On October 02, 2003 at 21:01:23, macaroni wrote: > >>does this look like a reasonable branching factor? for this evaluation I had >>killers, history, and captures all turned on as move ordering. I do have null >>moving with R of 2. >> >>Analyzing the position after 1. a3 >>1 7 0 22 Nf6 >>2 2 0 110 Nf6 d4 >110/22 = 5 >>3 7 0 269 Nf6 d4 Nc6 >269/110 = 2.45 >>4 2 0 1616 Nf6 d4 Nc6 Nf3 >1616/269 = 6 >>5 7 6 5012 Nf6 d4 Nc6 Nc3 e5 >5012/1616 = 3.1 >>6 2 39 38381 Nf6 d4 Nc6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 >38381/5012 = 7.7 >>7 4 269 246052 Nf6 d4 Nc6 Nc3 d5 Nf3 Qd6 >246052/38381 = 6.4 >>8 4 555 531125 Nf6 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 d5 d4 Qd6 e3 >531125/246052 = 2.15 >>9 5 1813 1674270 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 d4 d5 Bf4 Nh5 Be5 Nf6 >1674270/531125 = 3.15 > >Alpha Beta will bring the average from 30-40 in branching factor down to 6. >Your later plies (where it really matters) show a very good branching factor. > >>if not. What sort of things can improve it? my quiescent search is still fairly >>basic, no SEE, but it only looks at moves that bring it within 50 of alpha. > >Have you read Ernst Heins' book? "Scalable Search in Computer Chess: Algorithmic Enhancements and Experiments at High Search Depths" by Ernst A. Heinz http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3528057327/103-1705887-1419012?v=glance
This page took 0.01 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.