Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:52:11 11/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2002 at 11:55:47, David Rasmussen wrote: >On November 26, 2002 at 11:45:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>> >>>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. >> > >Thanks for the reminder, but I know this :) >As you can see in my code, I do _not_ count leaf nodes and qnodes together. Actually it seems you count leaf nodes twice? Once at the top, once when you call quiesce()? Or did I mis-remember??? > >>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... > >But I do _not_ count qnodes and leaf nodes together. I don't, because I want the >qnodes percentage to reflect more directly what changes I do to the qsearch. > >/David That's the right way to do it, but I don't see how you are separating the two. The first layer of Quiesce() calls are leaf nodes and are _not_ optional. Any layer beyond the first is subject to your decision-making policies...
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.