Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:28:46 05/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2005 at 09:46:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 31, 2005 at 01:21:54, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>>By this redefinition of EBF, I don't immediately see how any technique *can* >>>have any effect on the EBF. >> >>Any technique that changes shape of the tree can easily cause change of the >EBF. > >Did you actually read the thread? He seems to be talking about some "other kind >of EBF" where that does not happen. I can't explain it in any other way. > >>And now think about SE in particular. Without SE you can stop searching the node >>the moment you have cutoff. With SE you should search further, thus increasing >>EBF. [Of course you are searching extra subtrees, and those subtrees should >>affect EBF, too, though I don't know what way]. > >Which is exactly what I and Robert have been saying... > >-- >GCP I think that the confusion lies in that the EBF is usually computed as time(ply)/time(ply-1). Where the real EBF could be considered the sum of the moves searched at all nodes that are expanded, divided by the number of nodes that were expanded (an average branching factor, more or less). I have just come to the conclusion that the term "ply" only means something useful within my own program. Comparing it to other programs is not very useful since the depth reached is the sum of a lot of other things inside the program, from extensions and how much they extend, to repeated searches for things like SE, etc...
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.