Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:11 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 23:53:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 23:36:20, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 23:17:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Conversely, we might allocate a *single* hash entry. Either method ought to >>>dumb the program down just a touch. >>>;-) >> >>Having a single hash entry will not make the program much worse. >I am surprised to hear that. I have seen curves drawn which show a massive rise >in ELO for the first few megabytes, which then tapers off to what appears to be >a logarithmic increase. > >And if a program assumes a hash table will be helpful, and always does a lookup, >but never finds an answer, I would think that it would be slowed down quite a >bit (wild guess: maybe 2x). > >>Storing your hash table on a hard disk will. This came up on usenet news about 2 years ago. I ran a huge test and posted the results. Which were basically that a tiny hash table hurts some, a big one helps some. The speed difference was about 2x from tiny to huge. That is significant, but only 50-70 rating points... max...
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.