Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 16:41:45 10/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1999 at 18:57:17, Peter McKenzie wrote: >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 Hi Peter, It sounds like we count nodes the same way. What's a typical q-node percentage for Lambchop? In Grok its ~15%, which seems to be well below what others are reporting. --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.