Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:22:22 07/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2002 at 08:13:44, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On July 20, 2002 at 08:04:01, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>I think it matters "a factor of 2". >> >>1) it helps you to prune >>2) you get better evaluation in the upper plies when you can return a score >>based on a deeper search. >> >>number one will show itself directly because you iterate deeper, the second one >>you don't "see", but it does improve depth along some branches in the same way. > >1) I get +- 10% hash hits (and less prunes) in typical middlegame. Not enough to >matter a factor of two (but I didnt check this so not 100% sure). > >2) Uh? > >-- >GCP Run your program with a tiny hash and a deep search. Then a big hash and a deep search. In middlegame positions this will be at least a factor of 2x. Measure time to depth. Small hash might take 4 minutes to get to depth 12, then big hash will take around 2 minutes... I posted a bunch of this kind of analysis a few years ago when prompted by Komputer Korner (Alan Tomalty).
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.