[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] new cache for readconnect and semeai
From: |
Arend Bayer |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] new cache for readconnect and semeai |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:35:19 +0200 (CEST) |
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > - complete conversion to new cache
>
> Did you find out what I did wrong and why it didn't work? Was the missing
>
> str = origin(str);
>
> the only thing?
I think this did cause the increase in owl nodes that Gunnar observed when
owl was converted to new cache. I never got the huge breakage Gunnar
reported, but you used
if (tt_get(...))
instead of
if (tt_get(...) == 2)
in semeai reading which caused a couple fails in seki.tst if I remember
correctly.
> > Index: engine/cache.h
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvsroot/gnugo/gnugo/engine/cache.h,v
> > retrieving revision 1.44
> > diff -u -p -r1.44 cache.h
> > --- engine/cache.h 5 Feb 2004 22:54:42 -0000 1.44
> > +++ engine/cache.h 11 Apr 2004 05:49:02 -0000
> > @@ -50,11 +50,13 @@
> > * fields:
> > *
> > * RESERVED : 5 bits
> > - * remaining_depth: 5 bits (depth - stackp) NOTE:
> > HN_MAX_REMAINING_DEPTH
> > * value1 : 4 bits
> > * value2 : 4 bits
> > * move : 10 bits
> > - * flags : 4 bits
> > + * cost : 4 bits
> > + * remaining_depth: 5 bits (depth - stackp) NOTE:
> > HN_MAX_REMAINING_DEPTH
> > + *
> > + * The last 9 bits together give an index for the total costs.
> > */
>
> Two things here:
> - I think that maybe 4 bits for the cost is too much. We don't need 16
> levels. 2 bits should be enough.
Well I don't care much. We might decide otherwise later, and we have 5
unused bits in RESERVED anyway.
> - If you add 4 bits for cost, you should reduce the RESERVED part with
> the same amount.
Nope. Note that flags is gone. (Which was unused.)
Arend