Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 09:40:41 11/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2001 at 12:33:09, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On November 14, 2001 at 11:00:29, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 14, 2001 at 07:10:35, Dan Newman wrote: >> >>>I decided to try an experiment to see if I got different results on a >>>test suite using just 32 bits. Part way into the test, Shrike crashed. >>>So it looks like I've probably got a bug in my hash table move validity >>>checker. Looks like 64 bits spares my program from such failures--so >>>it has at least some utility :). >> >>On the contrary, I would say. Thanks to 32 bits hashing you have now >>discovered a dangerous bug that was luring around in your programand surely >>would have triggered at a critical time in a tournament :) >> >>I did a run of 90 positions, at 1 minute on my Athlon 1000, with >>32 and 64 bit hashing: >> >> 32 bit 64 bit Ratio >>----------------------------------------------------- >>Nodes: 574508449 564330729 98.23% >>Time: 186910 193491 103.52% >>Depth: 10.40 10.36 -0.03 >>Solved: 58 58 >> >> >>The fluctuations are entirely within the range that I would >>expect from just choosing another random seed for the hash >>number generator. So, I do not think it makes a difference. >>-- >>GCP > >How many of the test positions were endings? What were the sizes of the 32-bit >key hash tables and 64-bit key hash tables? How large are your hash entries? >32-bit hash keys have 2 advantages instead of just 1. It is quicker *and* it >allows for a significantly larger hash table. It would also be helpful to list >the NPS of each. > >BTW, thanks for the interesting test.
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.