Author: Michael Henderson
Date: 17:31:12 09/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2004 at 19:15:58, Rick Bischoff wrote: >Hello, > >I use an aging counter in my hash table, that is incremented after each "real >game move"-- anyway, Do these stats look "normal" for you regarding hash hits, >etc? > >A hash hit: keys match (thereby giving a good move to try) > >The rest of the scores below mean that there was a hash hit and that the stored >depth >= current search depth: > >exact: stored age == age and flag == exact >upper: flag = alpha with no referenece to age >lower: flag = beta with no reference to age >I did the whole invalidating exact aging scheme because my program kept on >getting into "hash loops" in certain positions where it would keep on playing >the same line over and over again, thereby converting a won game into a draw. I have never heard of this behavior. Are you talking about from iteration to iteration? I would like to see an example of this. I assume you are not talking about getting a hash hit at ply one? > >I replace always EXCEPT where the search has the same age and less than equal >depth to the stored entry. > >***** 11201 ms elapsed 1247030 nodes 111332 nps. 181809 probes %13.6242 hits, >%0.0440022 exact, %2.67203 lower, %1.0577 upper. nulltry=127769 nullsec=84970 >ext:(mate=63,check=29699,pawn=143) Your numbers seem low. I can get 16-25% exact+lower+upper hash cutoffs in the opening position. Michael
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.