Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 07:22:56 05/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 2002 at 19:26:43, martin fierz wrote: > >>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? Nothing wrong, IMHO. I would expect a single table to perferm better as the double table, provided we use a replacement strategy like you describe. (You may also try to do a mini-LRU replacement within each 2-element bucket. That needs just 1 additional bit of status.) The advantage of a single table is that it effectively provides more slots, thus increasing the hit rate (slightly). >aloha > martin Cheers, Heiner
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.