Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 22:36:34 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
Another test Bob did, this time to depth 9 on the same position. Here are the results: ----- [D]3rr1k1/1p2b1pp/p1b1p3/8/PnBBq3/2Q2N2/1PP3PP/R4R1K b - - 0 1 Komputer Korner <korner1@netcom.ca> wrote: : What we need is a comparison where the total possible nodes : calculated (either evaluated or looked up in the hash table) is : smaller than the number of possible entries. Therefore the experiment : should be done at a much smaller depth so that we can see the cases : where the hash table isn't overwritten at all. : -- : -- : Komputer Korner : The inkompetent komputer Here is more data: This time to depth=9, rather than 11. time bytes entries nodes searched ------------------------------------------- 1:05 96K 6K 12,139,882 1:00 192K 12K 11,245,725 54.5 384K 24K 9,995,634 55.1 768K 49K 10,131,840 52.3 1.5M 98K 9,567,818 46.3 3M 196K 8,463,339 44.5 6M 392K 8,119,062 43.5 12M 800K 7,932,811 43.0 24M 1.5M 7,833,488 42.9 48M 3.0M 7,802,585 42.7 96M 6.0M 7,779,999 42.7 192M 12.0M 7,779,122 42.7 384M 24.0M 7,778,994 This gives data for a reasonable sized search, but with a hash table that actually goes way beyond the total size of the tree. You can draw your own conclusions, but it is pretty easy to guess, based on the above, how much of my tree is 'q-search' and is not hashed... ---- Jeremiah
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.