Author: Matthias Gemuh
Date: 09:39:24 11/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2002 at 11:07:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 21, 2002 at 08:26:48, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >>On November 21, 2002 at 08:15:50, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>On November 21, 2002 at 07:13:10, Vladimir Medvedev wrote: >>> >>>>depth = 9, from initial position: >>>> >>>>pawn hash = 1 entry -- 28% successful hits >>>>2 -- 33% >>>>3 -- 37% >>>>4 -- 38% >>>>5 -- 41% >>>>7 -- 43% >>>>10 -- 45% >>>>100 -- 60% >>>>... >>>>65K -- 84% >>>> >>>>I was quite surprised with this :) >>>>Even 1-node pawn "hash" helps a lot! >>> >>>Doesnt one get something around 99% with big tables ? >> >> >> >>With 2x65kB. More is not needed, if only pawns are considered. > > >There are more possible pawn positions than that. White has 8, black has 8. >there are >48 possible squares any of them can be on... That is a pretty big number. Some hasty and wrong thinking then, when I implemented my pawn hash. Maybe I somehow excluded strange positions like all pawns on 2nd and 3rd rows. I shall check my code and logic later. I generate keys such that they lie in range 1..2x64kB and use them as index. I hit 95%..99% in middle game and WAC. Thanks, Matthias. Thanks, Matthias.
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.