Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:02:50 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 13:07:22, Michael Henderson wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 05:10:56, martin fierz 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. >>[snip] >> >>i use only one hashtable in my program. whenever i tried using 2 tables, my >>results were worse. i tried this many times, because everybody here says it's >>better to use 2 tables. i never got it working, and decided to stick with 1 >>table, as it is much simpler overall. >> >>IIRC dieter buerssner also mentioned that for him 1 table worked just as well as >>2 tables. >> >>as others have said, if you want to benchmark this you'll have to use longer >>searches - and to do that you should use a different test than WAC, i suggest >>using ECMGCP, that is much tougher and more suited for longer searches. you >>could also artificially create lots of replacements by making the hashtable(s) >>really small - but i'm not sure that that will give you a relevant result... >> >>cheers >> martin > >What replacement strategy do you use for the 1 table? > >Michael IIRC i have 4 entries per index, and i always replace the one with the lowest depth; even if the new entry has a lower depth than any of the 4 existing entries. IIRC because 4 is a #define in my program, i can change that to anything i like. it's possible that my 2-table approach was flawed of course. i just never got it working better than the simple approach above. KISS... cheers martin
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.