Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 10:55:22 03/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2004 at 12:24:42, Steve Maughan wrote: >After hacking around in Excel for a couple of minutes I came up with this >formula. Of course it's an engineers fomula and not a mathematicials formula >i.e. it looks about right and I'm not really interested in the proof :-)) > >Node = 2 * sqrt(moves ^ depth) * sqrt((1 / MoveOrdering) ^ depth) > >It's based on the thought that when the MoveOrdering stat falls we need to >search more than one move at a theoretical cuttoff node i.e. alternative depths. > Also the effect is going to be multiplicative and as the MoveOrdering >approaches 1 the nodes approaches the theoretical minimum. > >Thoughts? Interesting! Node = 2 * moves^(depth/2) * (1/MoveOrdering)^(depth/2) Help me! What's the minimum of MoveOrdering to get a minimax tree? > >Interestingly this means that the difference between a move ordering stat of 0.9 >and 0.95 for a 10 ply search is 31% more nodes. At a 15 ply search this >increases to 50% more nodes. So improving the move ordering has more effect at >slower time controls - I think we knew this anyway. Yes, but not so nice to calculate. Cheers, Gerd > >Regards, > >Steve
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.