Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:50:24 05/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2000 at 22:34:17, Christophe Theron wrote: >On April 30, 2000 at 18:42:57, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On April 30, 2000 at 16:39:04, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 30, 2000 at 06:47:29, Amir Ban wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2000 at 11:31:09, Eran wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I am sorry if I said it. Okay I believe you that Junior6 has underpromotion code >>>>>and that's wonderful. Maybe I will consider buying it. Does Junior6 consume >>>>>hashtable memory as large as fritz does? Is having large hashtable memory >>>>>important for Junior6? Is 40 MB hashtable enough for 40/120 games? >>>>> >>>>>Eran >>>> >>>>More memory for hash is good, but Junior is not very sensitive to it and you can >>>>change memory size by order of magnitude without obvious effect on playing >>>>strength. >>>> >>>>The comparison to Fritz is interesting and backward: I believe that Fritz 6 >>>>(new) consumes less memory than previous versions and the reason may be a >>>>conversation I had with Frans about this in Paderborn, from which he may have >>>>decided that he doesn't need so much memory. >>>> >>>>Amir >>> >>> >>> >>>I must admit I don't understand what you say... >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>Then why don't you ask :) >> >>I understood from Frans that he's hashing quiescence nodes. I told him I don't, >>and that I consider it a waste of time. >> >>Amir > > > >I hash quies nodes. I tried both methods (hashing them and not hashing them) and >found that hashing QSearch nodes was definitely better, but not by much. I did >hours of experiments and drew a lot of curves with my spreadsheet in order to >find this. > >It works better even if the hash table is highly saturated. > >That's how it works for me. I don't think that I have a better hashing/replacing >strategy, actually it is rather simplistic. Maybe it's because I do more in >QSearch than both of you do, although I cannot know for sure. > >Maybe I should check again... :) > > > > Christophe I used to hash q-search nodes. I found it reduced the size of the tree by about 10%. I also found that by taking it out, I reduced the total search time by 15 %. A net gain of 5%. More importantly, I don't need nearly the hash memory now since over half of the search is not hashed. My next task is to save some time by getting rid of the hashing/unhashing code in the q-search as well, since it isn't used...
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.