Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:45:02 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 11:38:40, David Rasmussen wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 10:28:24, Sune Fischer wrote: > >> >>You must have some extension that goes mad, like a threat extension or >>something. I get around 55% qnodes, so you are right it is high but not _that_ >>high. >> > >An extension? They're Q-nodes, and I don't "extend" in Q-search. Let's get on a common naming convention first. node = interior node as is searched by Search(). leaf node = _first_ call to q-search (Quiesce()) because those nodes are not "optional". quiescence nodes are any _other_ q-search nodes below leaf nodes. Most count leaves and q-search together, which is fine. And you should see numbers in the 50% range there because for every move at the last full-width ply you search, you will get one leaf node for sure, plus (optionally) more capture nodes below that... If you count leaf nodes as q-nodes, you can't possibly get down to 5-10% and you can see this by trying a tree with a branching factor of (say) 2.0. 3 plies means you try two moves at ply1, 4 at ply2 and 8 at ply3. For each ply3 node, you get one leaf node which is 8 leaf nodes vs 14 interior nodes. Then you tack on captures and you pass 50% instantly... > >>>I'm counting like this: >> >>Why not do it like this: >> >>>Score Search(pos,...) >>>{ >>> ++nodes; >>> ... >>> if (depth < ONE_PLY) >>> return Quiescence(pos,...); >>> ... >>>} >>> >>>and >>> >>>Score Quiescence(pos,...) >>>{ >> // no counter here... >>> ... >>> while (anymore interesting moves) >>> { >>> ... >>> MakeMove(pos,move); >>> score = -Quiescence(pos,...); >>> UnMakeMove(pos,move); >>> >>> ++qNodes; >>> ... >>> } >>>} >> >>Then you just have total nodes = nodes+qnodes and the percentage will be >>nodes*100/qnodes. Cheaper to do 1 add outside the search of course. >> > >That's just as good (or better). But I don't think it can be measured at all if >I do this or that. And the counts should be the same anyway. It's conceptually >simpler, though, which is why I might change how I do it. > >It's still a mystery why I get 97% qNodes in this position. > >/David
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.