Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 01:39:59 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2000 at 06:05:12, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >On April 11, 2000 at 03:28:03, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On April 10, 2000 at 20:28:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2000 at 10:00:40, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>> >>>>On April 10, 2000 at 09:00:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 10, 2000 at 06:10:22, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Has anybody found good values for TB cache with 3+4 piece tablebases and 5 piece >>>>>>set (compressed Nalimov of course)? Is it different? Or is 4 MB always enough? >>>>>>Is same value good under Fritz and Winboard? thanks >>>>>> >>>>>>Jouni >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here is what I do on a machine with decent memory, assuming I am playing in >>>>>a tournament that is playing long time controls: >>>>> >>>>>memory=512mb >>>>> >>>>>hash=384M >>>>>hashp=32M >>>>>cache=32M >>>>> >>>>>which leaves 64M for the O/S and filecache buffers. >>>>> >>>>>works well for me. In general, egtb cache is only important in egtb positions, >>>>>but then it is very important for performance. >>>> >>>>I haven't seen much difference for Shredder if I set the tb cache to 1 or 32 or >>>>256 MB. Any comments? >> >>Try analyzing a position with, say, KRBKRN and try different settings for cache. >> With 1MB, you'll get tons of probes, and contine to get tons of probes. With >>256MB, you'll get tons of probes, and then you'll start to get a bunch less >>pretty soon. (At least this is what should happen...) >> >>>Depends on the position... I ran several tests last year when Eugene first got >>>this stuff going, and I decided that for ICC level time controls, 32mb was a >>>good number. I rarely see my NPS drop drastically. It all depends on the >>>position and how many different databases are getting probed... >> >>As well as the speed of your HD. >> >>I've started using 48MB for cache, and it speeds up dramatically over lower >>amounts, even though I still get tons of probes sometimes. If I'm analyzing a >>position with about 7-8 pieces, with lots of possible transitions into 5-piece >>endings, I might even put the cache higher, because (on my machine) it speeds up >>the search a ton. > >Did you use Shredder or Crafty for your tests? I was using Crafty, and I assumed that they work similarly enough that you'd see similar things happen. Does Shredder not do a bunch of TB probes when you're near a TB position? If you cache these, you'll not have to do the same probe twice, which saves you a ton on disk I/O (which is what really makes too many TB probes prohibitively slow in some cases) It's possible that for Shredder you won't get much of a benefit, because it probes TBs a lot less or something. I don't know. :-/ Jeremiah
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.