Author: James Robertson
Date: 07:54:45 03/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 1999 at 09:27:18, Inmann Werner wrote: >Hello. > >After sleeping about it and going again on to the problem, I found out, that >most of you are right and want to thank for your suggestions!!! > >1) Making the new code, I started an old bug to work. > In Hash adressing, it is important, that hash size is something like > 2^x (65536,131072,262144....) I did exactly this but with one error. > To make the Hash you have to do something like > Hashadress=hashsize & hashindex. And here, hashsize has to be one less than > above (65535,131071....). the "-1" dropped out because of the new code. >Before, I had a special define for it, what now was obsolete. > > After this bug,the lack only is about 3 to 5 %. > I do not understand, why it worked better on my Cyrix. Maybe another "test >bug"? > > Please excuse me, to have worried you!!!! > >2) Robert is right. > Using structures increases again, but not much. Now I only have a lack > of 1% to 2%. > I think, I can live with it, cause on my Cyrix, the code "new" now is > faster than the old one. This must have to do with processor >architecture..... I am really no profi in this. > >Excuse again. Yesterday I really was worried. I checked the code often, what I >changed. But I did not think, that an old bug will get started, because of the >new thing. >Hashing really is a "hot" and very "fragile" thing! > >Werner I have had no end of troubles trying to implement hash tables. It is really wierd because the pawn hash I finished in a few hours, while the main hash has gotten exactly nowhere after days of work..... James
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.