Author: KarinsDad
Date: 14:51:53 08/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1999 at 16:09:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: [snip] > > >Not to mention the fact that you have to have a hash table big enough so that >entries don't get overwritten? My xeon has 512mb, but that isn't _near_ enough >to guarantee that I can keep everything... > >Sounds like overkill that will really slow you down, for minimal gain... but >it is worth experimenting with... I agree. But, I'm trying it none the less. My experiments have shown that the parent links are really helpful. The child links, much less so. But, even if I get 100,000 nodes per second, 240 seconds for a 4 minute search, and 128 bytes per "extended sized node", I would have to have a hash table size of about 3 GB if I wanted to save every node. So, with about a 100 MB hash table, I can only hang onto about 3% of the nodes. So, I have to find a way to remove 97% of the nodes. Even if I could drop this down to 80 bytes or so, I would still have to get rid of 95% of the nodes, so the space issue does not seem to be a major factor here. I do have a lot of stuff in my hash nodes which I could probably do in another way, but for now, the extra 40 bytes or so due to the links per node do not seem to be the critical factor (yet). And, even if I drop the child nodes completely (these are easy to remove, the parent nodes though are critical to my current search/hash design), this would only save about 20 bytes or so on average. KarinsDad :)
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.