Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:13:41 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 12:20:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 09, 2004 at 10:50:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On April 08, 2004 at 15:01:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Substantiate your claim Hyatt. > >What claim did I make??? > >Or can you not read? >> >>How could even if 0.x in 1 billion hash errors modify hashtable hit rates? > >Who said it did??? >Can you read? Yes i can read your cynical comments: "Your program is obviously a big departure from what I do in Crafty. It would be interesting to see how hash collision errors affects what you do..." Basically you implicitly say his search is affected by collission errors caused by being different from crafty which of course is the 'real truth'. >> >>Just admit his qsearch is better and as a result of that he researches his tree >>more. Your qsearch is rude & quick and of course do not improve your main search >>a lot. > >q-search doesn't make you "research the tree more". Your typical action again. Your fliprate is 5 times higher than mine and you claim that your thing is doing a normal thing. I would rather say INEFFICIENT thing. It is a choice. You prefer a rude & quick search. Simple qsearch without difficult moves tried, just some captures. Causing in combination with a simple quick & rude evaluation function a big fliprate. 5 times higher than that of DIEP and i bet 5 times higher than that of Xinix too. How can you claim his more efficient hashtable management to be incorrect?
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.