Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:32:48 02/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 1999 at 05:10:19, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >On February 25, 1999 at 00:35:29, Don Dailey wrote: > >>On February 24, 1999 at 17:53:05, Larry Griffiths wrote: >> >>> >>>I have read a few chess papers about hashing. The ones that I have read >>>recommend not hashing at the leaves of the tree, but I seem to get better >>>performance doing it this way. (At least in the opening and middlegame). >>>Am I missing something or is this recommendation from the stone ages? >>> >>>Larry ~(:-> >> >>Do what works best. I hash 4 ply into the quies search but no farther. >>Why? Because I ran a lot of timing tests and this was optimum. > >Hashing in quiescence seems a little bit tricky to me. Imagine that you are >generating captures only but you get a non-capture move from the hash table >probe. >How do you handle this case, ignore this hit or make this move ? > >Uli > In Cray Blitz, I ignored the move... In crafty, I found that hashing q-search vs not hashing q-search made very little difference (<10%). But when I removed the hash probe code, and then didn't worry about the hash move and so forth, I was 10% faster, so it was a 'wash'. I like the not-hashing approach myself, because it means you can search much longer before overrunning the hash table... But the best advice is to _always_ test this yourself.. as YMMV >> >>Your mileage may vary! >> >>- Don
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.