Author: martin fierz
Date: 16:26:43 05/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
>A single always-replace table will not be anywhere near as good as the two-table >approach most of us use (one is always replace, the other is replace with deeper >draft only). i used to use a two-table approach in my checkers program, with one table being used for all nodes which were <N plies from the root, the other for >=N. in the first table, i replaced with deeper draft only, in the second, i always replaced. i changed it to a single table after finding no significant difference; in the single table i have a hash bucket size of 2, and replace the entry in the bucket with the lower draft. this works better for me than the double table - what did i do wrong with the double table? aloha martin
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.