Author: José Carlos
Date: 05:48:34 05/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2001 at 17:03:27, Alex Boby wrote: > As a hash replacement scheme I have 2 tables, one replace all collisions, the >other only if the depth is greater (or equal but better type). > > After a bunch of games in a row, it seems that the latter table gets full up >and is rendered more or less useless. So I think I need more flexibility for the >replacement. I considered adding a 'staleness' value so that the records are >replaced after N failed attempts. But I have no idea what I should set N to and >I'm not really fond of this idea anyways. > > I'm now thinking about just clearing the second hash table after every game. >Is this an effective strategy? > >Thanks for your input. >Alex I use a different approach, that people doesn't seem to like. But it works fine for me. I store the total material sum with the position. When I have to decide whether to replace or not, I first check the stored material. If it is bigger than the material at the root of the tree, I always replace. Otherwise, I follow the habitual strategies (draft, type of bound, etc). I prefer this approach rather than 'age', because if there no exchanges for many moves, the stored position can still be interesting. For example, you discard a plan for being to early to make it, and manoeuvre with pieces for some moves. During all that moves, knowing that that plan is bad can be very helpful. José C.
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.