Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 09:28:57 04/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2004 at 12:54:30, rasjid chan wrote: > <snip> > >Rasjid After reading all of the bulletins following this one, it has become clear that hashing is, indeed, "a complicated affair" and to some extent "everybody does it differently." All of the discussion has been about how to implement the hashing idea and the overriding purpose seems to be to achieve greater overall computational efficiency by avoiding unnecessary duplication of calculations. As a user, and not a chess programmer, I see hash tables very differently. To the user, they are something the user may or may not be able to USE. Post-mortem analyses are of greatest interest to me currently. The user's question for post-mortem analysis is: "how can I do a better [smarter] job of post-mortem analysis by taking into account the way hashing works? Clearly, if every program does hashing differently, then the answer may be program dependent. Post-mortem analysis can be done in a variety of ways and the question therefore becomes: "Which way is best?" The user must think about how his/her actions might be affecting the contents of hash tables and then choose the best post-mortem analysis method. The biggest [but not only] problem for the post-mortem analyst seems to be the horizon effect. The best way to deal with this problem may depend on how the hashing is implemented. From a user's viewpoint, the hash table contents is, essentially, memory of analysis lines. The user may be able to impact what is put into that memory and in what order. Users are in a "different world" from that of chess programmers! : ) Bob D.
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.