Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:28:12 09/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2004 at 12:07:40, Brian Richardson wrote: >On September 07, 2004 at 11:34:42, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >> >>To Do or not do? >> >>That is the question. >> >>Stuart > >Answer will vary for each engine. >For Tinker, the answer is yes, it plays better hashing in q-search. >You will just have to test your own engine to know, IMO. >Brian To add to that, hardware also matters. IE on the quad opteron I search at 10M+ nodes per second. That means I need 160M bytes of hash to hold a full second of searching, if I store everything. 10 seconds = 1.6 gigs. 100 secs is 16 gigs, etc. My decision to not store q-search was partially based on that, apparently for the same reason that Amir said he did not even store the final ply of the normal search in the transposition table.
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.