Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 12:32:25 05/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2005 at 14:28:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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). No, because in both definitions an extension would behave as we normally expect, i.e. always increases BF. The original poster had some kind of idea of "average depth" in mind but we don't usually consider that. -- GCP
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.