Author: John Coffey
Date: 17:36:28 06/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2000 at 18:56:14, John Stanback wrote: >On June 19, 2000 at 18:38:12, John Coffey wrote: > >>On June 19, 2000 at 16:54:46, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 19, 2000 at 16:27:58, John Coffey wrote: >>> >>>>Let us say that I have a system with not much RAM, like the Gameboys that I >>>>program. Transposition tables are out of the question. The Gameboy Advanced >>>>(16 mhz risc processor) has 1/4 meg available as an option that can be placed on >>>>an external cartridge, but I figure that is not enough to do anything. >>> >>>256k is a terrific size for a hash table, esp. if the processor is 16mhz. >>> >> >>Assuming that you could get 4,000 positions per second. 256K is about 16K >>positions. You would fill up the table in about 4 seconds. Still it might >>prove useful. >> >>John Coffey > >I agree with Tom, even a tiny table with 4K positions is a lot better >than nothing. Use depth priority replacement for at least 1K positions >to get good ordering near the root and "replace always" for the rest. > >John Why is this effective? Why not use depth priority all the time? John Coffey
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.