Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:46:12 09/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 2004 at 05:27:57, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >On September 13, 2004 at 00:46:30, Michael Henderson wrote: > >>Hello, can anybody confirm these definitions I have for nodes? I think they are >>right but I like to make sure :) >> >>(depth = 2) //pre frontier node > >And additionally > > (depth == 3) //pre pre frontier node > >>(depth = 1) //frontier node >>(depth = 0) //leaf node > >IMHO each node without any successor is a leaf node, so independent from depth. >The opposite of leaf nodes are interior nodes. >What about horizon-nodes for nodes at depth == 0? > >>(depth < 0) //qsearch node > >I would define a qsearch node for depth <= 0. 1)In that case all the leaf nodes are qsearch nodes. I think that it is not a logical definition because qsearch nodes mean for me additional nodes that I have because of the qsearch and it should include only nodes that are based on captures or checks that were done in the qsearch. 2)For me there is depth of the qsearch and depth of the search and they have different meaning so I do not use depth<0 to decide about qsearch nodes. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.