Author: Michael Henderson
Date: 22:21:44 09/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2004 at 01:03:37, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >Well, here's the result. Two runs on Win-at-Chess at 1 second per move >on a P3. The compilation flag UTM is with the triangular array and >its entry taken as the best move. > >Walking the Hash for best move/pv: >+ 6.78/27.44 81% 243/300 250.06 74259544 247532/1/296973 0/855173/1429928/507556 >/17118632/97735 > >Triangular Array for best move/pv: >+ 6.78/23.28 82% 248/300 250.70 73645824 245486/1/293757 0/851605/1423773/506165 >/17084388/98392-DUTM > >The bottom line is that 5 more positions got solved with the >triangular array method than for walking the pv in the hash table. > >5 positions is a lot since progress has become slower. > >This is proof enough for me though I hope to hear the specifics from >Bob Hyatt of how a hash table can get trashed if there are no collisions >and length >= depth for replacement algorithm is used which would seem >to all guarantee that nothing worse for the same position would ever be >stored. Obviously it's something in the tree that I can't see. > >Good stuff. > >Stuart That's good news! The extra +5 positions may be due to stuffing PV in hash table (improved move ordering and longer PVs). I found Hyatt's explantion here: http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=343272 I don't understand how it causes blunders, but I do see how extensions can cause move disagreements.
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.