Author: Steve Maughan
Date: 07:41:52 10/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
Dan, >That's what I'm using (the two level table). I believe Vincent has said that >he uses a multiple hit scheme to good effect. I've always worried a bit about >the memory traffic though, but if you don't probe in the qsearch, it turns out >(at least in my case) to not be very bad at all. (I only got a small change >of a few percent in node rate when going from a 100 MHz to 133 MHz memory >clock. And the node rate scales almost linearly with processor speed up to >933 MHz.) I may try multiple re-hashing some day, but it's a low priority >since the two-level seems to work so well... Interesting. I'll have to check my code carefully to see if there are any bug. I had assumed that the difference was to do with multiple probes - clearly not the case. I do like the simplicity of my current algorithm. I'll probably post another message asking if there are any positions with standard hash hits. >As an experiment I tried zeroing out my hash table move, so that it couldn't >be used. The first move cutoff ratio dropped from 92.6% to 89.8%, so it >didn't have an enormous effect. But then 89.8 is getting close to 85... I think the 85% must go up - that extra 5% - 7% will dramaticallt affect the tree size. Thanks again, Steve
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.