Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 12:07:21 09/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1999 at 12:14:10, Bruce Cleaver wrote: >Here's an idea: many programs include a pawn-only hash table, and the hit rates >on it are quite high. Since the bishop evaluation in any postion is strongly >coupled to the type of pawn structure (bishop + many pawns on same color is >generally a negative, for example), you might save computation time by putting >these together. The pawn-only tables would then be a subset of the pawn-bishop >hash tables (those pawn-bishop positions without any bishops). > >Other pieces aren't nearly so coupled to the pawns (rook, knight, etc.). > >No doubt it has its drawbacks as well. Perhaps the space required would greatly >increase, leaving less room for the full hash table, thus actually decreasing >performance. Still, I'd like to hear feedback.... > >Thanks, > >Bruce I tried this at one point, but instead of keeping this I ended up putting all of the bishop-specific stuff into normal pawn hash, generating the whole wad each time I eval pawns, and doing just a bit of work at eval-time. Of course I do this even when there are no bishops. I also cram king safety stuff in there. My pawn hash record is like 100 bytes, it's completely huge. I don't know why I rejected the seperate bishop hash table idea, but I think that I may have made an arbitrary decision, and the idea is quite possibly very good. bruce
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.