Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:05:17 06/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2005 at 07:16:30, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 01, 2005 at 05:54:53, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 01, 2005 at 04:57:59, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2005 at 01:47:12, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>>Yes. But the distinction between both is pretty irrelevant for the point, which >>>was that Ricardo is using some defintion of branching factor which is totally >>>not the same as what is normally used (both effective and real), and then used >>>that to say "you are wrong". Another claim was that one can infer the 'goodness' >>>of an extension by it's effect on the branching factor (any kind). >>> >>>Both make no sense, and the first one will additionally lead to a lot of >>>confusion. >>> >>>That is now quite sufficiently proven, I think :-P >>> >>>Thinking of it, there are some extensions that will decrease the "true" >>>branching factor (as we normally understand it). Check extensions, for example. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>I do not see it. >> >>Check extensions only increase the branching factor(in other words the program >>need more time to get the same depth) > >Uri, most of this thread revolves about discussion about what the "branching >factor" is. I suggest you try to deduce the *meaning intended* first before >replying, instead of jumping in and missing the bat completely. > >Look at Robert's post for a hint. > >-- >GCP You wrote "will decrease the "true" branching factor (as we normally understand it). in your post. I understood earlier that the discussion is about something that is not considered to be the branching factor by most readers so I stayed out of this discussion but when you wrote "as we normally understand it" I thought that the discussion is irrelevant and you talk about what most people understand as true branching factor. Uri
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.