Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Hashing is a complicated affair ?

Author: rasjid chan

Date: 15:42:57 04/05/04

Go up one level in this thread


On April 05, 2004 at 15:59:40, Dann Corbit wrote:

What fruits! I can't yet digest the apple.

On a more serious note, it seems there MAY BE much more in hashing
than what I know - UB, LB, EX. I need time to see what all these mean.

Rasjid



>On April 05, 2004 at 15:24:11, rasjid chan wrote:
>
>>On April 05, 2004 at 14:44:04, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>Maybe you miss my point. Actually I have no references about the
>>technical "intricacies" about hash table implementation and
>>I rediscover "new" things about hashing all the time which is BAD.
>>So I post this to hope someone just confirm with me once if my
>>analysis could be way wrong!
>
>Probably, I cannot answer well about that.
>
>I have many kinds of hash table.  One kind scores only exact scores and it is
>permanent (I save it to disk and restore it from disk).  These are also divided
>by piece count.
>
>The other kind of table stores edge values.  There is only one of these and it
>is regenerated for every game.
>
>I keep as much flag information as possible (this is a null move, a lower bound,
>an upper bound, unknown, qsearch, EGTB hit, invalid, killer,...)
>
>What you describe sounds OK to me.  Since you ask the question, I think you must
>see some problem.
>
>
>>I did have all the assert()s, you mentioned and I may be the top in using
>>assert().
>
>Have you seen the source code for fruit?



This page took 0.01 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.