Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 15:57:17 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 18:40:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 06, 1999 at 18:16:27, Scott Gasch wrote: > >>I think it is time we defined some terms here. Here is what I do: >> >>depth <= 0 -- qnode. Note this includes depth=0 horizon nodes. >>depth > 0 -- node. >> >>I am seeing about a 4:1 ration of qnodes to nodes, sometimes a bit less. I >>think that some people are counting ONLY depth=0 nodes as nodes (not qnodes) and >>wondering about the ratio of these "nodes" to qnodes (depth < 0). >> >>Scott > > >Probably correct. depth=0 nodes are not optional, so they are properly called >'leaf' nodes... any nodes _below_ a leaf is a q-node. I just count nodes, >period, and don't sweat it at all... I agree, leaf nodes aren't part of the q-search. To put it another way: you would still have the same leaf nodes if you didn't have a q-search. The point of counting q-nodes is surely to see how much of the search your q-search is taking up. Counting leaf nodes won't help you here, because it is the fullwidth part of the search that 'creates' a leaf node. I increment nodes when making any move. I also increment q-nodes when making a move that is part of the q-search. (Although I only do this in debug mode). Peter
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.