Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 07:20:34 05/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2000 at 01:10:52, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On May 30, 2000 at 21:48:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>All I'm saying is that the numbers you gave (e.g. 25%) are (hash hits/hash >>>probes) and not (hash hits/nodes). The latter is what's more important in this >>>case. >>> >>>-Tom >> >> >>That number would be meaningless. Of course you can't "hit" if you don't >>"probe". Who would care? I only want to know what percentage of the time I >>get a hit after doing a probe... which seems like the only reasonable measure >>of anything. If a program probes in the q-search, those numbers would match >>mine _exactly_ since in his case, probes == nodes. > >No, that number would NOT be meaningless. > >Sure, if you are trying to gague the effectiveness of a hash entry replacement >scheme, it makes more sense to measure hits/probes. But in this case, "we" need >to find out how many times the hash move can short-circuit move generation. So >unless you don't generate moves in qsearch() either, the number is important. > >-Tom I agree, I want to know both. I am redoing my hash completely and will post the numbers coming weekend. It's nice that I now know what to measure exactly. Regards, Bas Hamstra.
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.