Author: h.g.muller
Date: 11:35:26 03/05/06
Go up one level in this thread
I experimented a little bit with the replacement policy, and was surprised to find how well the most simplistic strategies performed. Sometimes they clearly outperformed my attempts to do it in an intelligent way... :-S It might depend a little on the details of your normal search, my search was very conservative, doing iteratively deepening the search in the smallest possible steps from the retrieved hash depth (if any) to the requested depth. Under those conditions simply overwriting anything there might have been in the entry to which a position hashes on the first try, without any attempt to rehash and without any regard to the depth of the result you overwrite worked quite well. What worked absolutely disastrous was to hold on to deep results that were not suitable for the current window limits (so bounds of the wrong type, rather than exact values). That brougt the search almost to a crashing halt, because the table would be completely polluted by deep results that were no longer of any use (because of a readjustment of the value of the root position, and without the benifit of being able to hash these positions at lower depth with useful bounds the search would never get deep enough to correct the situation.
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.