Author: Tony Werten
Date: 22:47:12 05/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2005 at 20:31:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 31, 2005 at 15:32:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>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. > >No. Think about it for a minute. It doesn't affect "the average moves per >node" whatsoever. It just drives the search deeper along certain paths... Even >if you do the DB/CB SE approach, the SE detection searches don't change the >"average branching factor" at all, as each node will still have about the same >number of moves to search... > >I think that is what is causing the confusion here. No, I think the confusion is that GC leaves the word "effective" out every now and then :) but I'm pretty sure he's only talking about ebf. Tony > > > >> >>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.