Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:23:00 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 04:57:22, Richard Pijl wrote: > >>well, there are people doing two hashtables anyway, one for shallow and one for >>deep nodes. qs/main search fulfils that type of requirement too. not that i'm >>convinced of using 2 tables at all, just asking around for opinions. > >This is different from just a separate qsearch hashtable. In fact, I do have two >hashtables now, one depth preferred, and one replace always and did find an >improvement by doing it this way. The depth preferred table is supposed to store >the 'expensive' nodes, where the replace always table should store the 'local' >nodes. Catching the 'local' transpositions is mainly used for shallow searches, >but limiting it to only qsearch seems to be counter-productive. >Richard. You do not need 2 tables for that purpose and you can use one table with more than one move for every hash entry. Uri
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.