Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 09:57:02 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Uri, > I think that the main reason is simply the fact that engines with hash tables > are usually stronger not only because of hash tables and have more knowledge > about endgames. well, I have seen it several times, that as long the programmers did not implement hashtables I have some chances (as I said, when I survive in the middle game) but as soon as they implement hashing in whatever way my chances were zero. > movei cannot play without hashtables but if I release a version without hash > you will probably not have chances against it also in the endgame. There you are most likely right. But of course I have also no chance at all to survive in the middle game - I am simply to weak... :) > I believe that hash does not help a lot for movei espacially when today I do > not use it for pruning and I will first learn crafty's code about hash. maybe you start with some code that is easier to understand like e.g. MSCP or TSCP (I think the newest TSCPs have hashtables implemented ?!) It is sometimes better to start with the basics and then try to implement your own ideas... > I believe based on some test positions with one entry for hash tables that > today being 2 times slower is a bigger demage for movei than not having hash > (I do not believe that one entry changes much). There you are for sure right ! Well, when I mean having implemented hash then I had in mind that one would use at least 16k or more entries... >I expect it to be changed when I implement hash correctly. Well, I had some discussions with Dieter Bürßner about that topic - at least you could spent some thought on the idea that your implementation is more correct then what we do, especially in combination with extensions and forward pruning... Greets, Thomas
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.