Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Optimum transposition table element size

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 12:59:19 09/13/03

Go up one level in this thread


On September 13, 2003 at 15:14:54, Tom Likens wrote:

>On September 13, 2003 at 13:39:22, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>I have decided that I want to try out MTD(f) in Zappa.  It sounds like a cute
>>algorithm with a number of advantages over PVS().
>>
>>My hash table right now is a crafty-style limit hash: 2 bits type (upperbound,
>>exact, etc) and 16 bits score (zappa uses -10,000 -> +10,000 which requires 16
>>bits).  It seems like MTD(f) requires a dual-bound hash: 16 bits upper limit and
>>16 bits lower limit.  I would imagine that a single bound hash would be very
>>inefficient.
>>
>>Unfortunately, I can't get this to fit in 64 bits.
>>UL: 16 bits, LL: 16 bits, Move: 24 bits, Depth: 7 bits, 1Rep: 1 bit, Mate
>>Threat: 1 bit, Search ID (for depth-first): 3 bits = 68 bits.
>>
>>So, it seems to me that there are 4 possibilities:
>>
>>1. Steal 4 bits from the hash key.  Collisions are now 16x more likely (don't
>>really like that)
>>
>>2. Extend trans_ent to 32 bytes (wasting 45% of the total memory)
>>
>>3. Extend trans_ent to 24 bytes (cache-line-aligned only 75% of the time)
>>
>>4. Extend trans_ent to 21 bytes, have 3 probes and 1 pad byte. (somewhat ugly,
>>more memory traffic)
>>
>>Option 4 looks the most appealing to me right now, but I'm open to suggestions.
>>
>>anthony
>
>Hello Anthony,
>
>I'm guessing you use a 64-bit hash key and steal the lower (or upper) N bits
>for the address into your hash table.  If the previous assumption is true
>then you have N redundant bits that you could steal from the *storage* of
>the hash key without any loss of accuracy.  For example, if you use the
>lower 16-bits then when you save the hash key into your table only save the
>upper 48 bits.  And when you compare only compare the upper 48 bits.  Of
>course your main hash key is still 64-bits.  This should free up the
>bits you need.
>
>--tom

Sigh . . I guess its been too long since I took 18-347.  Can't believe I forgot
the fundamentals of such things.

Thanks for the help.

anthony



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.