Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:53:08 10/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 1999 at 15:45:33, Dan Newman wrote: >On October 09, 1999 at 02:02:44, Scott Gasch wrote: > >>I hate to follow my own posting but I solved this problem and wanted to share >>the solution in case it helps anyone else. >> >>First of all, I was counting a hit as a signature match in the hash AND a usable >>node (depth was enough to be useful). Some others count any signature match as >>a hit. This difference was part of the problem. >> >>When I started counting the same way as others I noticed my hash rate was 49.97% >>on Fine 70 (see previous post). This lead me to suspect something was wrong >>with side to move which turned out to be true. Black to move positions were >>overwriting white to move same positions and vice versa. >> > >I prevent this by having separate hash tables for black and white. This >also effectively increases the hash code by one bit--to 65 bits. (Not >that it's really needed...) The other way is to (of course) hash in a >side to move bit pattern--but that has always seemed chancy to me somehow. Okay, but does this seem "chancier" than any other part of the hashing process? :-) >-Dan. Dave
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.