Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:43:20 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2003 at 09:01:43, Sune Fischer wrote: >On April 06, 2003 at 08:45:30, Dan Andersson wrote: > >> A precise formula? Not practical AFAIK with regards to transpositions and the >>possibility of choice of lower branching, higher transpositional subtrees. >> >>MvH Dan Andersson > >It might be possible, in the same way it is possible to use a hash for counting >perft. for small search depths that might be true to some extend. But the major problems you get when you assume that the program uses a hashtable of its own. So influences like overwriting hash entries and loading factor of it get of overwhelming importance. Note that if there would be a technique to determine a much smaller search tree in an easy way for big search depths (so not too much overhead to count things) then i would consider doing the experiment myself too. It's very itneresting to know for me whether at a search depth of say 12 ply, whether a good move ordering could get it from say 12 million nodes to 1.2 million nodes or whether 8 million nodes is more realistic. It tells basically what you could achieve by a better move ordering. >You have to add a few counters to your hash entry, each entry must know the >average depth to which it searched. I suppose you might even need an array (like >int [maxsearchdepth]), so when hitting this entry you add all the counters here >to the current branch. >You need of course some kind of triangle array for counters, just like when you >assemble the PV. > >It's bound to be a mess, but probably doable :) > >-S.
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.