Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 03:07:13 12/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2001 at 03:35:46, Tony Werten wrote: > >As with most (if not all) icca papers they don't prove a thing. The term "state >of the art program" is very populair in those papers, but hardly applicable. > >It should mean: a program that represents the current knowledge but looking at >their branchingfactors (specially when they switch all enhancements of to prove >something) that can hardly be taken seriously. If you have a big bf than >improvements are working uite often. > >The Journal does contain a lot of good ideas though, but you have to try them >yourself to see if they work in your program. > >Tony > I agree, of course. And besides, as Hyatt mentions, the best hashing scheme depends on the hardware architechture. But the person who asked was looking for a general answer, I think. One single answer even though no single answer exists. That's why I wrote "best". But the best thing to do, sure, is to try different schemes in ones own program. /David P.S. The Breuker thesis that I've read (I know he has published 4-5 papers about hashing), was definately not published in ICCA. It is a 100+ page thesis, and as such too large for ICCA, I think.
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.