Using side to move as a separate bit in hash key

Discussion of chess software programming and technical issues.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
sje
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:43 pm

Re: Splitting the table

Post by sje » Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:58 pm

syzygy wrote:
sje wrote:
syzygy wrote:
sje wrote:
syzygy wrote:
sje wrote:Another idea is to split the table into two equal size tables; one for WTM, the other for BTM. I've done this and it has worked well. In a program with a variable search depth, both tables see about the same usage regardless of the root STM.
Pre-determining which half of the hash table will be used for white and which for black will decrease the efficiency of the hash table. "about" the same usage is not enough.
Actually, it is; at least in my tests. And it will be true in any program with a variable depth search regardless of the origin(s) of the variability.
How did you test?
By activating the various metrics counters for utilization, inserts, probes, matches, etc.
So no tests of the effect on playing strength.

It is intuitively obvious that splitting the table in two and dedicating one half to white-to-move and the other to black-to-move is suboptimal, because white-to-move hash pressure and black-to-move hash pressure will not always be equal. Testing is not really needed to confirm this. Only if you could get a speed up by splitting the table might it be different, but a speed up you won't get.

Statistics suggesting that things tend to average out somewhat don't really convince me, I'm afraid.
Gosh, I don't give a crap if you're convinced or not. I'm merely reporting what I've done and what I've seen. I never claimed that each half of STM would see absolutely equal use, but in practice they effectively will in any variable depth search.

syzygy
Posts: 5048
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Splitting the table

Post by syzygy » Sun Aug 07, 2016 8:06 pm

sje wrote:
syzygy wrote:Statistics suggesting that things tend to average out somewhat don't really convince me, I'm afraid.
Gosh, I don't give a crap
That's fine with me. But why go through the trouble of posting that info?

Post Reply