Search algorithms are often categorized by their node expansion strategy. One option is the depth-first strategy, a simple backtracking strategy that traverses the search space in the order in which successor nodes are generated. An alternative is the best-first strategy, which was designed to make it possible to use domain-specific heuristic information. By exploring promising parts of the search space first, best-first algorithms are usually more efficient than depth-first algorithms. In programs that play minimax games such as chess and checkers, the efficiency of the search is of crucial importance. Given the success of best-first algorithms in other domains, one would expect them to be used for minimax games too. However, all high-performance game-playing programs are based on a depth-first algorithm. This study takes a closer look at a depth-first algorithm, AB, and a best-first algorithm, SSS. The prevailing opinion on these algorithms is that SSS offers the potential for a more efficient search, but that its complicated formulation and exponential memory requirements render it impractical. The theoretical part of this work shows that there is a surprisingly straightforward link between the two algorithms -- for all practical purposes, SSS is a special case of AB. Subsequent empirical evidence proves the prevailing opinion on SSS to be wrong: it is not a complicated algorithm, it does not need too much memory, and it is also not more efficient than depth-first search.