Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:01:24 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2002 at 13:13:39, Gerd Isenberg wrote: >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. How much faster do you get from not using the more stupid approach? I call every improvement that is less than being 5% faster a small improvement. Uri
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.