Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 09:21:38 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 13:40:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 10, 2002 at 09:26:14, Eli Liang wrote: > [snip] >>(7) Dennis Breuker has a paper comparing 5 different transposition table >>replacement schemes. Has any else been able to validate his results that >>replacement should be based on the number of nodes searched and not search >>depth? > >Hard to say. The issue will become hash entry size. You can store "depth" in >a byte. You will need at least 4 (and really more) bytes for nodes searched. >Your table will therefore be smaller, and _that_ effect was not measured. Also >I am not convinced that in endgames, nodes searched is the right idea because >of hash hits that cut trees off that have significant depth, but no nodes due >to the hash hit. > >I don't know that he addressed that case either, such as the one seen in fine >#70. If you saved nodes in the hash table, you could take the node value from the hash table and propagate it up the tree. This would also do wonders for your NPS ;)
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.