Author: Graham Laight
Date: 09:32:59 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 10:30:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 25, 2000 at 06:55:22, Graham Laight wrote: > >>On July 25, 2000 at 01:58:54, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>> >>>Hash tables and NPS generally have very little in common. Lowering the >>>hash table size will increase NPS with a few percent because less hash >>>table code is executed. >>> >>>Ed >> >>If this is right, then the best thing to do is to have no hash tables whatsoever >>- this will maximise your NPS and simplify your code! > >No hash tables will result in a speed drop of a factor 3-4 average. The >hash table code is in the search module and not in the evaluation module. > >Ed Sorry, but I'm getting confused here. Let me try to state as simply as possible what I think you're saying, and if it's wrong, somebody can correct me: * hash tables are used to store positions which have already been evaluated * sometimes, in the search, a position will come up which has already been looked at previously * if so, that branch of the search need not be done again, because the results are already in the hash table * thus, using hash tables, you'll do fewer NPS, but you'll still be better off because you won't be wasting time searching branches that have already been searched -g
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.