Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Hash table question

Author: Carmelo Calzerano

Date: 08:35:10 02/19/01

Go up one level in this thread


On February 19, 2001 at 09:55:04, Larry Griffiths wrote:

>On February 19, 2001 at 06:01:36, Carmelo Calzerano wrote:
>
>>On February 18, 2001 at 11:29:39, Larry Griffiths wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I use a reference indicator in my hash entries when the hash key matches.
>>>
>>>Only 20 to 40% of the hash entries are being referenced during a tree search.
>>>
>>>Is this a normal range?
>>
>>
>>Surely not, unless the number of entries in the table is much bigger than the
>>number of nodes you visit in the search (which is usually not the case).

I have to correct myself: 40% is _not_ a bad value, unless the number of nodes
visited is much bigger than the number of hash entries :-)

>>Hash entry references must be equally distributed; i.e., if you have a 1 M
>>entries in your hash and search 100 M nodes, you should find each hash entry
>>referred about 100 times (with small statistical fluctuations of course).
>>
>>HTH

>I used Bob's Random64() function to produce the Hash keys.  I also created two
>hash tables so that black and white positions would not overlay each other.
>I even use slots and will do a hash add within the next 7 slots if the primary
>hash slot add fails.

But what's the ratio between nodes visited/hash size?
I.e., if you have 1 M hash entries and visit 5 M nodes, 20-40% sounds ok.
OTH, if you have 1 M entries but visit 500 M nodes, then 20-40% is
_definitely_ a very bad value...
:-)

>It may be that positions that caused cutoffs are never seen again because
>succeeding cutoffs occur.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean

Bye,
Carmelo




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.