Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 13:54:59 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2002 at 16:09:25, Dennis Breuker wrote: >On December 01, 2002 at 16:08:53, Andreas Guettinger wrote: > >>Can anybody explain me the difference between BIG1 and BIGALL? >> >>from the article >>"Replacement Schemes for Transposition Tables", D.M. Breuker > >From page 32 of my thesis (http://www.breuker.demon.nl/thesis/): > ><begin quote> >Big1 counts a table position in a transposition table as a single node, >BigAll as N nodes, where N is the number of positions searched in >order to obtain the information of the table postition stored. ><end quote> > >What I mean here is that with Big1 I count a TT hit as 1 node, >whereas in BigAll I count a TT hit as N nodes, where N is the size >of the subtree under the TT hit. > >This is all pure academic, since the size of the subtree >(Deep, TwoDeep) is just as good and easier to maintain. > >Cheers, >Dennis Breuker Many thanks for the reply. The question arose during reading of the article. As I understood you wrote (and it's possible that I am wrong because I somehow didn't manage to get the figures to show up with ghostscript) that TwoBig1 was the best scheme you tested? But you say that TwoDeep is sufficient? I agree that it is easier to maintain. regards Andreas
This page took 0.02 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.