Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 11:30:05 09/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2002 at 23:06:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 10, 2002 at 18:29:02, Jesper Antonsson wrote: > >>On September 10, 2002 at 13:40:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>On September 10, 2002 at 09:26:14, Eli Liang wrote: >>>>>(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. >> >>Just a simple thought: You can store the logarithm of nodes searched, i.e. >>1024-2047 nodes make you store 10, 4096 => 12 and so on. Perhaps good enough, >>and 5 or 6 bits should suffice. >> >>/Jesper > > >The only downside is quantization errors. IE if you store log2(nodes) then >you collapse any value from 2^N to 2^(N+1)-1 into one value... Obviously. /Jesper
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.