Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 23:11:47 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 21:37:02, scott farrell wrote: >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 all may be true but is of no interest for me. What counts is the question what does more hash bring in practical play. Kurt
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.