Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 13:49:25 11/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 1998 at 14:25:45, Frank Phillips wrote:
>Thanks. Order seems important . Killer moves are a big help in
>some positions.
Yes. You should not find them to be a waste of time.
>>>And on which planet? :)
>Earth.
Oh! So we are neighbours! :)
> If my question seemed strange put this down to inexperience. This is my
>first attempt. But I thought that the number of moves that the search
>considered out of each position’s (node’s) move list would be an important
>performance indicator. Mine averages around 9 in the middle game, which seems
>high.
I see. You are talking about the branching factor!
To measure it, I think you should display the number of moves seen at the end of
each iteration and compute the average of
nb_of_nodes(iteration N) / nb_of_nodes(iteration N-1)
(the number of nodes of iteration N-1 is also counted in the number of nodes of
iteration N)
Notice that it is different depending if N is odd or even.
For example you could average the result for iteration 7 and iteration 8 to have
a better measure. Do this for a number of different positions to have an even
better number.
The measured branching factor should definitely be under 6.
9 is way too high.
Some good programs have a branching factor under 4. It is maybe the case of
Crafty.
>I got the impression from posts here that 2 or 3 is probably closer to
>the norm? My program manages about 7-8 ply (plus check and recapture
>extensions, and quiescent search) in 10 seconds at about 80k nps.
This does not sound too bad...
>Crafty, at
>twice this speed, goes disproportionately deeper.
Really? Are you sure?
>Something badly messed up I
>guess.
Compute your branching factor and you will get an idea.
Maybe others compute it differently. I don't know if there is a "standard" way
to compute it...
Christophe
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.