Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is my move ordering acceptable?

Author: Christophe Theron

Date: 09:45:47 10/30/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 30, 2003 at 12:43:04, José Carlos wrote:

>On October 30, 2003 at 12:27:16, Tord Romstad wrote:
>
>>On October 30, 2003 at 11:05:41, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On October 30, 2003 at 10:46:09, Vladimir Medvedev wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>In order to find out how good my move ordering is, I determined to check
>>>>>>which percentage of the cutoffs occured on the first move searched.
>>>>
>>>>Is branching factor more or less accurate parameter to evaluate quality of
>>>>sorting moves?
>>
>>Perhaps, but how do you measure the branching factor?  I have asked this
>>question here before, but never recieved any answer.
>
>
>  After every iteration I print in my log file something like:
>
>  Branching factor:
>    - This iteration = Total Nodes / Nodes Last Iteration
>    - Acumulated: pow(Total Nodes,1.0 / Depth)
>
>  With this measure, I'm finding that my program has huges BF's (per iterartion)
>in the first nodes, that go down to <= 3 after 5 iterations or so. But the
>acumulated has a slow reducing behaviour, going to <= 3 after at least 12 plies.
>  I'm still working on understanding it :)
>
>  José C.



The QSearch is maybe a part of the reason.

The percentage of QSearch nodes in the first iterations is higher than in the
deeper iterations.

At least that is my experience.



    Christophe






>
>
>
>>>You can improve your branching factor by pruning or reduce it by extensions.
>>
>>Everybody always seem to claim that extensions increase the branching factor
>>(I suppose that is what you meant, although you wrote "reduce"), but it is
>>not at all obvious to me why this should be so.  On the few occasions I have
>>experimented with this myself, removing all extensions has not resulted in
>>a noticably better branching factor.  Of course the program needs fewer
>>nodes to complete a given search depth without extensions, but the difference
>>does not seem to be exponential.  Perhaps more detailed and careful
>>experiments would have given a different result.
>>
>>Tord



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.