Author: Michael Henderson
Date: 12:03:33 09/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2004 at 14:49:41, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 11, 2004 at 12:13:36, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On September 11, 2004 at 00:08:20, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I added keeping a triangular pv in main search and quiescence >>>to compare it with the output of my walk-the-hashtable-pv. >>> >>>The two differ frequently but quite often are also mostly >>>identical all the way through. >> >>Don't forget to check the hash flag, that the moves are actually PV moves. >> >>Mostly you get them overwritten with upper or lower moves, those should not go >>in the PV. >> >>>Which should I trust? Seems like the hash table is getting >>>overwritten with other variations (not sure why). What >>>kind of scenario would cause that? My algorithm is >>>length >= depth to replace. >> >>That's not a very good replacement scheme, if you only have a single bin I'd >>recommend using replace always. > >This gave a nice improvement on a Thinkpad laptop of 237 solved of WAC >@ 1 second per, to 244. > >I guess recency is more important than depth!!! I don't know why I never >even considered to replace always. Didn't even test it. I always had >assumed that depth was more important than recency. Bad assumption > >Nowadays, do most use 2-tier or ? If so or whatever, what are the preferred >replacement algorithms? > >Thanks, >Stuart Recency is important for short searches in which the average depth is small -- not much overwriting. Using always replace or depth >= depth exclusively in tournament games will restrict your depth in many situations. Most use both (2 tables)--I tested it vs other implementations and I found it's the best. good luck, Michael
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.