Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:48:25 06/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 2004 at 14:26:35, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. Right okay, using an age not based upon the ply in the game would solve it. I'll consider using it :) -S. >-- >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.