Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 11:26:35 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 14:07:31, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 19, 2004 at 13:45:59, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On June 19, 2004 at 13:39:47, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>When having to choose though, I'd have to say that I just don't pay very much >>>attention to the different counters during a game, except perhaps the nps. >> >>IMHO one has to make this number useful by reporting a useful value >>to the user :) >> >>Wouldn't you agree that when it's pegged at 99.9% constantly it would >>be a good idea to give more hash, or conversely that when it's constantly >>at 1% that maybe more memory could be used for tablebase caching? >> >>There is a chance to give some good information here. > >Absolutely, as usual it's a few oddball situations that's bothering me. > >E.g. suppose I analyze a position to fill 99%, then go one move forward and let >it fill to 30%, and then go back again. > >Now the max fill will be 30%, because the remaining 70% has the same flag so the >counter will not increment when hitting those. > >Perhaps a flaw I can learn to live with, I guess there is no perfect method. Deep Sjeng doesn't have any problems with this. When you go back and forwards again, the counter won't consider the positions the same. However, each time and old position gets a hashit (which will happen a lot!), it will get promoted to the current search. So you'd effectively have the same efficiency and hash statistics still work correctly. -- GCP
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.