Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 15:42:16 07/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2003 at 15:01:33, Tim Foden wrote: >I haven't exactly heard any results about this, but it seems like it may be a >sensible approach to try. I believe it was in _the_ paper about transposition tables (I don't remember the name at the moment). I recall that there was one chapter of this paper devoted to transposition table replacement schemes and it showed that node based replacement was better than depth based. The improvement was not trivial, but not dramatic either. >Nope. I compare with the depth. If it passes, it goes in the primary, and the >original primary record is moved to the secondary, if it fails it just goes in >the secondary table. I don't have code to restrict the primary and secondary to >only have one instance of a particular hash key, as my tests made this look >slightly worse. I always find it interesting to learn how people probe, replace, manage different tables, and so on. Thanks for sharing.
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.