Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 16:44:00 09/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2004 at 18:01:26, Richard Pijl 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. >> >>I am asking that some of the talented folks look this over >>and tell me if this is grossly wrong (expectation -or- code.) >> >>Or what might be the best methods for evaluating the function of >>the two methods... >> > >Replacement schemes start making a difference when entries start to get >overwritten on a regular basis. So, don't expect a big difference on 1 second >searches. The overhead of a dual probe (without looking at your code) may hurt >at such short searches. >What you can do is reduce the hash size to, lets say 10kb and then compare >scores again. >Richard. I always wondered why aging of entries in the hash table using a timestamp wouldn't be better. Stuart
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.