Author: Severi Salminen
Date: 14:03:00 12/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
>Two things. First, if your pawn structure evaluation is pretty simple, hashing >may be a loser for you. Because you update the signature on every pawn move, >but only evaluate pawns at endpoint positions. If the signature update adds >up to more "cost" than the evaluation it replaces, you lose some. Yep, this seems to be the case: too simple to gain anything from hashing. It helped a little to use 32-bit key instead of 64-bit. But overall it seems that I have to wait until my pawn evaluation is more complex. Or then I'm so excellent programmer that my algorithms are so fast that no need for hashing :) I might try to add some pawn island evaluation to see how it affects - it should narrow the gap. Also I noticed that on my slow (300MHz) computer, even a table of 65536 entries is enough. If I perform a 11 ply search in position after 1.e4 e5 2.d4 d5, my pawn hash table still has about 10000 empty slots. Is this too low? The hit rate was about 96%. After 9 ply search the table was less than half-full. I allways replace an entry when there is no hit. Severi
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.