Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:14:14 09/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2002 at 23:32:03, James Swafford wrote: >On September 17, 2002 at 23:03:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>> fail highs: 10866 (3%); fl: 9929 (3%); ex: 671 (0%) >> hashing-> 29%(raw) 24%(depth) 99%(sat) 99%(pawn) >> hashing-> 0%(exact) 16%(lower) 1%(upper) >>> >>> fh: 1531962 (49%); fl: 432594 (13%); ex: 2836 (0%) >> hashing-> 64%(raw) 59%(depth) 99%(sat) 99%(pawn) >> hashing-> 0%(exact) 55%(lower) 2%(upper) >>> >>> fh: 3443 (1%); fl: 2926 (1%); ex: 151 (0%) >> hashing-> 24%(raw) 18%(depth) 98%(sat) 98%(pawn) >> hashing-> 0%(exact) 16%(lower) 0%(upper) >> > >Thanks Bob. I've cut and pasted your data to follow mine for >each position. I don't count the number of probes I do.. maybe >I should. Anyway, on positions 1 and 3 I noticed your fail high% >is significantly higher than mine. On position 2, my fail low% >is significantly higher than yours. Position 2 is more "tactical". > >How do you interpret that? Is it likely that I have a bug, or >is this a consequence of poor (or different) move ordering? >My move ordering is horrible right now... but I'm not sure how that >affects my hash table usage. That is a tough thing to compare. IE do you probe in q-search? I don't. That might make the comparison a bit flakey. fail high vs fail low could certainly vary, although they probably should add up to a similar total. IE I can fail high at the current ply on a probe, you could fail low on the next ply and cause the same sort of tree size... In tactical positions, extensions play a role, of course. Which would lead me to not pay a lot of attention to comparing that... also, 10 second searches might be deeper or shallower for me, which would also affect hashing efficiency. > >BTW - I'm using a combination of depth preferred and always >replace. The "tables" are the same size (really one big table >so I can do consecutive reads). For PC performance that is probably better, although the 1x / 2x tables I use let me use 3/4 of memory for hash, rather than 1/2... > > >-- >James
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.