Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:42:53 09/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2004 at 18:03:13, Michael Henderson wrote: >On September 21, 2004 at 17:36:47, Stuart Cracraft wrote: > >>Hi -- this past weekend I switched from single-tier replace >>always to two-tier place 1st tier in 2nd if incoming position >>is searched to a >= depth than currently stored at hash entry >>and store incoming position in 1st tier, otherwise always replace >>2nd tier if depth is. >> >>This is represented by the actual code below. >> >>After doing this, I expected least the same result or slightly >>better (than 250/300 on Win-at-Chess). Instead I scored 248/300 >>(consistently) with Two-Tier and 250/300 consistently with One-Tier. > >Excuse me for the simple explanation, but 2-tier works much better at deeper >depths/long search time trees. 2-tier is slightly slower in the 1 second >searches due to the extra memory lookups. It is best at handling filled and >active hash tables. I'm thinking 1-tier is fast and all you need for 1 second >searches... > >Michael Great -- I'm sure you're right.
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.