Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Hashing is a complicated affair ?

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 12:59:40 04/05/04

Go up one level in this thread


On April 05, 2004 at 15:24:11, rasjid chan wrote:

>On April 05, 2004 at 14:44:04, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>Maybe you miss my point. Actually I have no references about the
>technical "intricacies" about hash table implementation and
>I rediscover "new" things about hashing all the time which is BAD.
>So I post this to hope someone just confirm with me once if my
>analysis could be way wrong!

Probably, I cannot answer well about that.

I have many kinds of hash table.  One kind scores only exact scores and it is
permanent (I save it to disk and restore it from disk).  These are also divided
by piece count.

The other kind of table stores edge values.  There is only one of these and it
is regenerated for every game.

I keep as much flag information as possible (this is a null move, a lower bound,
an upper bound, unknown, qsearch, EGTB hit, invalid, killer,...)

What you describe sounds OK to me.  Since you ask the question, I think you must
see some problem.


>I did have all the assert()s, you mentioned and I may be the top in using
>assert().

Have you seen the source code for fruit?



This page took 0.01 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.