Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 04:44:18 09/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2002 at 04:27:44, martin fierz wrote: >i wish i knew :-) >i've forgotten what exactly i did in my 2-table code. i think i kept my >"important table" relatively empty, and probed "forever" until i found a place >to store the entry. "forever" was usually once, but on occasion more. >i never quite figured out why this turned out to be less efficient than a single >table. it's well possible that my implementation was bad... the other thing i >thought about was that in checkers, you often have a situation where you can >reach the same position with variable depth - happens in any endgame with kings. >now, i was relying on the depth from root to select the table i was probing in. >if a position stored in the "important" table turned up deeper in the search, it >might not have been found because it was looked up in the wrong table. the whole >thing with two tables seemed more complicated than with one, so i threw it out - >besides, the difference is probably really small, even with a better >implementation. > >aloha > martin It seems to me that other things being equal (e.g. you use them in the same way), one table with two slots is going to be slightly more efficient -- or at least certainly not less efficient -- than two tables with one slot, due to better prefetching and caching behaviour. Dave
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.