Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 17:42:30 05/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
branching factor: my experience is, that we have to INCREASE the branching factor ! example: without nullmove on cstal gets arround 3-4 branching factor. with nullmove cstal gets normally <3 , often 2.5 or even less. but : imo this does not help, the opponents use nullmove, cstal uses null move, so how do you want to defeat your opponent, if you cannot see more than your opponent does ? IMO alpha-beta and nullmove are what scientist have tried in early days: they tried to come near to the sero-point in temperature! but this does IMO not help us to play chess. pruning has not the target that all programs behave equal and have similar mainlines and play the same moves and come to the same conclusions and get stronger and stronger each version and day (incest!!), thats NOT the target: the target should be the opposite: more variance... imo a NEW chess program should NOT follow the old way. it should go a different way. and it should NOT optimize itself by doing what the others do. because this cannot work. so - branching factor is only important if your chess strength comes via search. than it is maybe important to have an efficient search and to decrease branching factor. maybe it is important for all the dump programs who have nothing than search to generate strength. but - only for them.
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.