Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 15:24:40 12/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 05, 2003 at 17:37:50, Tim Foden wrote: Thanks for your comments (also those, I snipped) >On December 05, 2003 at 14:33:26, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>> trans: probes=1282039 hits=229767 (17.92%) draft=163348 (12.74%) >> >>Do you probe in qsearch? > >No. And later ... >>163268370 Nodes, 99.50% Leavenodes, 484273 Nodes/sec >>[ ^^^^^^ ^^ Grrr ..] > >:) In GLC this bit (2.1% / 97.9%) gives the % of normal nodes / % of q-nodes. I snipped too much, and now I am too lazy, to write it again. These numbers seem not to fit. Your search showed about 10 times more nodes than HT probes. Here it is a factor of 50 between qnodes and "normal" nodes ... >This position is simple a q-search killer! Sure >I've experimented with other ways, but so far this is the best I've found in >GLC. I still want to experiment with some more though (e.g. what about storing >best 2 moves??, or 3 hash entries in 32 bytes??). Without having tried it, I would suspect that having two scores/bounds is more promising. Your fail high ratios were not bad - would you really expect to make this much better by having 2 moves to try? >I would certainly seem to make sense to have all the records for an index be >bunched close together (rather than in separate tables) so only one read is >needed... this is still on my todo list! It should not be difficult to change. I had 2 tables for a while (very similar to what you described). I think it was less than 2 hours of programming to get the "3-entries-in-one-table" approach to work. Performance hit was not high, however (I had expected more). But it was also on a slow computer (perhaps K6-2 233, perhaps even on 486), so on current hardware, it could be more significant. Cheers, Dieter
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.