Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:37:50 05/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1999 at 17:26:18, Dave Gomboc wrote: [snip] >Chess knowledge is already being incorporated into the programs. It is just as >important to not waste time incorporating chess knowledge that the search would >have figured out on its own with less cost. > >Every talks about a branching factor of 30, or 35, or 28 (your number). But >really, it's about 2-4 in today's programs. Still exponential, but it's clear >that this makes "eventually" even more eventual. :-) It can only examine 2-4 choices if it does things like null-move pruning and other tricks of that nature. This means that it only works "most of the time" and fails sometimes. I think that engineered zugzwang positions may be a very good way to defeat most chess programs. I did not come up with 28. It was a quote from some expert (I don't remember who). In my database of about 2 million distinct games the average is about 30.
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.