Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 10:13:39 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2002 at 21:03:24, Dan Andersson wrote: >Ugh! Talk about destroying a nice run time behaviour. Using a 4K hash and a >rehashing scheme uould get you a mean almost identical to one. The algorithm you >describe would probably have a mean close to one also, but the standard >deviation will be horiible to behold. But the missed probe behaviour will be >real bad. Iterating over the move list raises the cost of an error linearly, or >very nearly so. Real stupid. There is no excuse whatsoever to use that >algorithm. > >MvH Dan Andersson Hi Dan, Thanks for the hint. In some endgame positions i got up to 20% collisions. In openings or early middlegame < 1%-4%. So about 5% in avarage. Before i used the even more stupid approach iterating back over the move list, comparing zobrist keys, first one 4 ply before and then in 2 ply decrements until there are reversible moves. So the 4KB table was a nice improvement for me. But anyway, time to try Bruce's approach. Regards, Gerd
This page took 0.01 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.