Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 10:17:59 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 13:00:18, Don Dailey wrote: >On February 22, 1999 at 21:57:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 22, 1999 at 19:53:14, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> <snip> >>> >>>OK, so the $64 question is: will using this table cause any measurable >>>improvement in your program? >>> >>>For example, will your node count drop if you do a fixed depth search on a test >>>suite? >>> >>>cheers, >>>Peter >> >> >>No..but you should get fewer undetected hash signature collisions... Whether >>that will affect scores/moves at the root for any position is a good question. >>Without a good answer, at present.. > >I would guess that using the "better" numbers will decrease the number of >collisions. I don't know if the improvement is enough to actually >measure (Hey, the program is player stronger now!) but it is an improvement >that comes at no cost and as such should be hard coded into the program. > >A good program will have a large number of little improvements like this >one. Get 10 or 20 things like this together and they start adding up. >You can easily live without any particular one, but not all of them >together. > I think that the big advantage here would be to avoid the occasional times that you get a *terrible* set of hash numbers. (the more important the event, the more likely this is to occur ;)
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.