Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 11:22:16 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2000 at 23:33:35, leonid wrote: >On July 23, 2000 at 21:08:04, Eelco de Groot wrote: > >>Sorry, I believe I got it wrong and hash-table hits don't count for NPS, so that >>"more transpositions" effect can't be read from the nps numbers and also the >>part of my post about Crafty's EGTBs doesn't make much sense then. >>Transpositions wouldn't show up in NPS. But if Leonid was more looking at >>differences in solution times with few or many pieces on the board and if he >>doesn't have transposition/hash tables implemented yet in his program, the >>higher number of transpositions because of the few pieces on the board would be >>a likely explanation for commercial programs being faster there. In solution >>times at least, that is. >> >>Eelco > >Just by curiosity, I went to try on Rebel and Fritz 6 (from Hiarcs 7.32) few >positions. In Rebel I was capable to see the NPS counter without any hash table >and later (same position) with big hash table. Difference was only in some 2%. >With Fritz it was more difficult and less perfect, since you can't cut its hash >100%. Anyway, with Fritz I saw the same trend. Hash (after 5 positions that I >tried) change almost in nothing NPS. > >Leonid. Hi Leonid, «the Game» needs a transposition table. It will make wonders for it. José.
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.