Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: MTD(f) and hash table size

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 05:34:25 08/17/03

Go up one level in this thread

On August 16, 2003 at 18:34:26, Dan Andersson wrote:

> Depth new >= depth old is a pretty crappy replacement scheme IMO. You risk
>filling the hash with worthless nodes. And that will kill MTD(f) as it will mean
>you have to do the same work repeatedly in the new null window search, and it
>may harm other search implementations. I actually prefer a repalce always scheme
>to that one.

I think that at least for a single search always replace is worse and if I clear
the hash tables between searches than Depth new >= depth old  is superior.

I also find other parts more interesting than the hash tables so I prefer to
work on them and not on improving the use of my hash tables.

Uri

• Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Dan Andersson 08:15:38 08/17/03
  • Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Uri Blass 08:34:28 08/17/03
    • Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Dan Andersson 10:34:07 08/17/03
      • Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Dieter Buerssner 13:24:24 08/17/03
        • Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Uri Blass 14:17:50 08/17/03
      • Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Uri Blass 10:41:35 08/17/03
        • Re: MTD(f) and hash table size Dan Andersson 11:27:56 08/17/03

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.