Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:21:31 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 13:17:59, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >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 ;) Note that I'd suspect that most are using 'psuedo-random' numbers,which means you get the _same_ set each time you play a game. If you don't do this, you can't use the hash signature for the opening book, for example...
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.