Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 04:46:55 12/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
Forget my remarks. If this was your problem, you would probably not reach so high iterations. (Comet ususally solves this on iteration #18.) I guess that rather your algo has a bug. Sorry, Uli On December 18, 2000 at 07:44:06, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >Hi Tim, > >I have been using the same position to test my transposition table for a long >time. I have observed that the replacement algorithm for the table access is >very important for positions of this kind. I mean the case that the key of a >position maps to an index which is already in use, and you have to determine >another index in order to store the position. IMO, it's very important to avoid >"clustering" for these cases. I remember very well that one of my first attempts >was to add some constant offset to the index. That didn't work very well because >the new index, built this way, soon experienced the same problem as the old one >and after a constant number of re-trys, the storage of the position was aborted. >Now I use some bi-"or-ing" or "and-ing" IIRC, ,and it works much better. > >May be, you have a similar problem here ? > >Regards, Uli
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.