Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:19:32 03/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2000 at 00:09:10, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On March 29, 2000 at 21:44:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>48m is definitely small for 18 hours, although it won't result in the search >>being 10x slower or anything that significant... It will easily slow it down >>by a factor of 2-3 however, maybe more... > >That much? I remember doing some tests to see how hash table size affected tree >size for 3 minute searches. Increasing the hash table size beyond ~512k always >decreased the tree size, but by a tiny fraction of a percent. Do you have some >data about this stuff? > >-Tom I don't have it handy, but I posted it in r.g.c.c a couple of years ago at the insistence of "komputer korner". I found that with a tiny table, going to a huge table, the search time varied from 1X to 2.5X. I ran the same position, same depth, with hash sizes from tiny to huge. I then ran the same position, using the same time limit, and found that the huge hash table program went 1 ply deeper... probably can find this on Deja...
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.