Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:19:33 09/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1999 at 07:19:53, leonid wrote: >On September 19, 1999 at 22:10:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 19, 1999 at 21:51:12, leonid wrote: >> >>>Please, say briefly what can reduce the "branching factor". I hope >>>that something very simple I am missing in this aspect. My branching factor >>>is only reason to feel me humiliated about my game. Maybe different logic >>>lead to different "factor"? Do somebody came through the similer experience? >>>And if it was so, what was the reason that you found? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Leonid. >> >> >>There is only one way to reduce the 'branching factor'... that is to use a >>purely selective search algorithm, where you throw out moves at every ply >>without searching them at all. IE alpha/beta reduces the branching factor >>from about 38 to sqrt(38). >> >>You can reduce the 'effective branching factor' by using null-move, or any other >>idea that selectively reduces the search depth for selected branches... > >I use alpha-beta already (found it some 8 month ago) and do my move ordering >after the material advantage that each move give. I use also the best moves from >the previous searches. But how about the null move? I never used it for one >simple reason, my idea is that null move give you the speed but make you >loose the precision from your search. In other words, null move is good way >for speeding the game but lead sometime to wrong moves. True or not true? > >Leonid. It will give you two plies of deeper search. It will make some errors happen. But overall, it is stronger (for me) than non-null-move searches. IE when I play crafty vs crafty with null-move disabled, crafty wins more games will null-move on than with it off...
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.