Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 17:36:12 03/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2003 at 17:26:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I don't see anything "contrary to Hyatt's assertion." > >It _might_ depend on implementation details as well. I'll try to run a >similar test tonight and post the results. I haven't tested it since >"Komputer Korner" posed the question and I tried it a few years ago in >r.g.c.c And here is the data you came up with then: depth 9: time bytes entries nodes searched ------------------------------------------- 1:05 96kb 6K 12,139,882 1:00 192kb 12K 11,245,725 54.5 384kb 24K 9,995,634 55.1 768kb 49K 10,131,840 52.3 1.5M 98K 9,567,818 46.3 3M 196K 8,463,339 44.5 6M 392K 8,119,062 43.5 12M 800K 7,932,811 43.0 24M 1.5M 7,833,488 42.9 48M 3.0M 7,802,585 42.7 96M 6.0M 7,779,999 42.7 192M 12.0M 7,779,122 42.7 384M 24.0M 7,778,994 depth 11: time bytes entries nodes searched ------------------------------------------- 13:13 96kb 6K 157,085,451 12:03 192kb 12K 142,633,162 10:31 384kb 24K 123,762,238 9:28 768kb 49K 110,838,220 8:38 1.5M 98K 100,802,339 7:48 3M 196K 90,979,000 7:22 6M 392K 85,975,960 6:53 12M 800K 80,347,212 6:32 24M 1.5M 76,465,119 6:22 48M 3.0M 74,738,532 6:13 96M 6.0M 73,253,374 6:05 192M 12.0M 71,581,397 6:03 384M 24.0M 71,156,722 So, varying hash size from 3MB to 384MB only yields about 25% decrease in nodes searched at depth 11, and less than 9% decrease at depth 9.
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.