Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Hashing is a complicated affair ?

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:04:55 04/06/04

Go up one level in this thread


On April 06, 2004 at 05:18:00, Tord Romstad wrote:

>On April 05, 2004 at 18:58:57, Andrew Wagner wrote:
>
>>On April 05, 2004 at 18:42:57, rasjid chan wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>UB = Upper bound, LB = Lower bound, EX = exact.
>>
>>When you store a value in the hash table, sometimes it will not be exact, so you
>>store some flag along with it that says what kind of position it is. If you just
>>failed high, all you know is that the score is at least X. If if failed low, all
>>you know is the score is at most X. And if the score is between alpha and beta,
>>it's exact.
>
>Another option is to store _two_ values in the hash table entries, an
>upper bound and a lower bound.  You will probably also need to store two
>depths, one for each bound.
>
>This is of course more expensive in terms of space, but it will also give
>you a bigger number of hash table cutoffs.  Whether it is worth the price
>probably depends on the engine.  In my engine, two bounds work much better.

Boy, do I like that idea!



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.