Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 09:19:24 09/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
The overhead of separating 24 bits is trivial: (hash_key >> 40) -Tom On September 16, 1999 at 12:10:24, Andrew Dados wrote: >On September 16, 1999 at 04:00:43, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>If you have a program with 64 bit hash keys, is it a good idea to devote n bits >>to pawns and the rest to pieces and side-to-move? >> >>I was thinking a good balance may be 24 bits for pawns, but I have no data to >>back this up. Does anybody else? >> >>-Tom > > This is one cool idea to consider especially while our nps goes up a bit every >year... At one point 64 bit hash will not be sufficient, so then 64 bit piece >and 32 bit pawn signature would work great. However for now, if your hashkey >calculation is incremental and involves xor function, overhead of separating 24 >bits from it is quite comparable to calculating second pawn hashkey, I think >(saving of some 10-20 clock ticks is simply not worth the headache). > > -Andrew-
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.