Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 16:57:11 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). Aha! I understand my error now. I'm thinking of something like average branching factor. EBF looks like BS with things like extensions, qsearch, etc. taking place in programs. A misleading stat at best. > >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 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.