Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 23:11:47 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2003 at 21:37:02, scott farrell wrote:
>On December 20, 2003 at 11:21:26, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On December 20, 2003 at 11:03:04, scott farrell wrote:
>>
>>>On December 20, 2003 at 10:53:56, Jay Hysenbeg wrote:
>>>
>>>>hi,
>>>>i was wondering what happens when u use low hash for a long time control. to the
>>>>point where the hash is normaly filled before the eng has made its move.
>>>>thank you
>>>>jay h.
>>>
>>>well, things start to deteroriate, your move ordering isnt as good etc., and
>>>your branching factor ends up so bad that it cant get from say 10 ply to 11 ply
>>>or whatever, it sort of like hits a brick wall somewhere.
>>>
>>>To what extent this happends largely depends on your replacement scheme, and how
>>>well it deals with overwriting entries.
>>>
>>>I test changes to my hash by running extremely small hashes, like 16k entries,
>>>just to see how it will cater.
>>>
>>>Scott
>>
>> Size of hash tables seem to have much less influence
>> than I have imagined. This showed a test over 50 games
>> between Fritz 8 [96 MB hash] against Junior 8 [8 MB hash]
>> and a second 50 games match Fritz 8 [8 MB hash] vs Junior 8
>> [96 MB hash]. The final result was in both matches almost
>> identical [25m+10s].
>> Kurt
>
>I was really talking about from a programming point of view, and proably more in
>relation to amateur engines not commercial.
>
>I am still right, a full hash kills depth/branching factor , but the amount
>depends on your replacement scheme, and I guess those commecial guys have some
>very very smart replacement schemes.
>
>Scott
This all may be true but is of no interest for me. What
counts is the question what does more hash bring in
practical play.
Kurt
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.