Author: Rick Bischoff
Date: 14:51:38 09/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
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 Option 5: Map your eval from -10000-10000 (which only takes 15 bits actually :-)) to -256 to 256 and store both bounds in bits. :-) Of course you may have some accuracy problems, but who really cares about that stuff anyway?? hehe
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.