Author: James Robertson
Date: 18:12:09 11/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 1999 at 18:57:56, Bert van den Akker wrote: >On November 21, 1999 at 16:37:52, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>Hi >> >>On November 21, 1999 at 16:04:39, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>On November 21, 1999 at 14:59:53, Bert van den Akker wrote: >>> >>>>From the start position I get a branche factor of about 14% >>>> >>>>This is in a 10 ply search from the start position. >>>> >>>>The branche factor is defined as: >>>> >>>>(total_number_of_moves_looked_at_in_a_node_before_cutoff / >>>>total_number_of_generates_moves) * 100 >>>> >>> >>>This is how I used to compute branching factor, too. I still think it's the >>>best way to measure the quality of your move sorting. >> >>I've no "experience" in computing a branching factor, but this formula looks a >>bit >>strange to me. I would have expected an absolute number, not a percentage. >> >>And consider the following: Let's say you try the move in the hashtable first >>and you >>get a cuttoff. (That's what you want in most cases.) According to your formula >>you >>get a branching factor of 100% - I think you'd like to get a small percentage >>though! >> >>>But, I think most programmers measure branching factor by dividing the total >>>number of nodes search at depth n by the number searched at depth n-1. >> >>This formula seems to be very intuitive to me. >> >>Kind regards, >> -sargon > > >Before I try the hash move I first generate all moves. >So the percentage will be ok. > >In my example on ply 10 >27632 moves from the hashtable were causing a cutoff. > >Not generating all moves would save me around 0.15 second. > >My move generator can generate 200000 times all moves in the start >position. > >BvdA It is a much better plan to try the hash move before generating all moves. :) James
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.