Author: Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso
Date: 10:51:38 04/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2001 at 06:45:48, Steve Maughan wrote: >Tony, > >>The best way IMO is to use 64bit, use fe the right 18 bit for indexing, shift >>the hashnumber 18 to the rigth and store the right 32 bit (the signature). You >>are then using a 50 bit hashnumber but you only store 32 of them. > >I store the whole 64 bits. I thought about trying your method but is it really >worth it? What happens when you need to change the hash table size? What >happens when you only have a limited amount of memory i.e. small hash table >size? The hash signature will reduce. I guess you save a little on bandwidth >but is it significant? Has anyone done any tests? > >Regards, > >Steve I will try to use one of the mentioned 64bit schemes, and I'll report later if the lost in speed (KN/s) is significant (wich is my main concern). In the mean time it is rather puzzeling for me that in the portuguese 8x8 game of checkers the 32bit hashing signatures aren't enough. 32 squares x 4 pieces = 128 numbers, this is so much less than the 64x12=768 in chess that I started from the very beginning with 32bit signatures. Regards, Alvaro Cardoso
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.