Author: KarinsDad
Date: 21:19:02 08/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 1999 at 16:35:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 28, 1999 at 03:06:09, KarinsDad wrote: > > >>Well, it's late and I'm not sure how well I did the math or even if this makes >>sense. But, let me know what you think. >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >OK...now I sort of follow... you are actually 'building' a tree, much like >is done in 'breadth-first' or 'best-first' type searches.... Rather than >doing a traditional alpha/beta search and randomly probe the hash table... >you are actually walking around the 'hash table' (which really doesn't sound >like a hash table to me) because it contains the tree you are searching??? Basically. The reason I consider it a hash table is that entries are added to it and searched within it via a 16K (or 32K, or 64K, depending on what works best) hash index. Hence, there should be 50 so nodes per hash index on average which enables a relatively fast search for a given transposition node and hence the child links are probably not needed (with child links, one dereference per node, but a 15% increase in node size; without child links, 2 to 8 dereferences per node if each index has a relatively balanced structure under it). I will try both and see if the extra speed is worth the extra memory. 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.