Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:52:59 02/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 1999 at 12:32:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Indeed. I hash everywhere and it speeds me up a lot. But yeah, i use 8 probe, so important positions don't get overwritten. In fact here hashtable becomes for me more or less 'evaluationtable' >>> >>>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.