Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 08:38:40 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 03:07:18, Dann Corbit wrote: >Well, you are right. For a repetition hash table no need to bother storing any >depth information. It's irrelevant. >Sure. But it's rare. If you are going to use a hash table to detect >repetitions you will have to: > Live with an occasional blunder due to overwrite This may be the source of my confusion -> Did you mean A) use the main transposition hash table to detect repetitions, or B) use a seperate, smaller hash table to detect repetitions, as Bruce does in Gerbil? I assumed you meant A (not sure why), but I use B. I think that by using a small hash table, you are safe. Even if there are 600 positions that occured in the game, if you use a 64-bit key, that is...gosh, really good odds :)
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.