Author: scott farrell
Date: 18:37:02 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 11:21:26, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On December 20, 2003 at 11:03:04, scott farrell wrote: > >>On December 20, 2003 at 10:53:56, Jay Hysenbeg wrote: >> >>>hi, >>>i was wondering what happens when u use low hash for a long time control. to the >>>point where the hash is normaly filled before the eng has made its move. >>>thank you >>>jay h. >> >>well, things start to deteroriate, your move ordering isnt as good etc., and >>your branching factor ends up so bad that it cant get from say 10 ply to 11 ply >>or whatever, it sort of like hits a brick wall somewhere. >> >>To what extent this happends largely depends on your replacement scheme, and how >>well it deals with overwriting entries. >> >>I test changes to my hash by running extremely small hashes, like 16k entries, >>just to see how it will cater. >> >>Scott > > Size of hash tables seem to have much less influence > than I have imagined. This showed a test over 50 games > between Fritz 8 [96 MB hash] against Junior 8 [8 MB hash] > and a second 50 games match Fritz 8 [8 MB hash] vs Junior 8 > [96 MB hash]. The final result was in both matches almost > identical [25m+10s]. > Kurt I was really talking about from a programming point of view, and proably more in relation to amateur engines not commercial. I am still right, a full hash kills depth/branching factor , but the amount depends on your replacement scheme, and I guess those commecial guys have some very very smart replacement schemes. Scott
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.