Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 02:27:21 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 05:23:00, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I guess you mean more than one position? That is what I'm doing, I've got just one chunk of memory that I'm addressing, and every hash entry consists of two positions. But logically you can look at it as two tables. Richard.
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.