Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:35:43 11/13/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1997 at 19:55:36, Moritz Berger wrote: >On November 13, 1997 at 18:09:38, Randolph S. Baker wrote: >< snip > >>I did run the tests on a 64MB machine, >>so each engine had at least 16MB of hash. While hardly an optimal >>configuration, Fritz certainly wasn't crippled by lack of memory in this >>case. > >I just saw Fritz 5 on my Toshiba Pentium 133 notebook fill 30 MB hash >tables in 90 seconds. Speed depends of course on the position, but >generally hash tables get filled faster and faster with increasing >depth. > >Moritz I'd like to see data on this topic. For example, in a typical opening or middlegame position, 30% hash hits is *very* good. there is *lots* of stuff that is stored and *never* used again, due to the way the tree is traversed. I depend on the hash stuff a lot, but in normal middlegame positions I don't see any huge performance issues at all. IE I don't think the difference between the biggest table I can use (96mb) and the smallest I ever use (1mb) is more than 10-15% at best. Perhaps in endgames this goes up. I'm going to try to run a small set of positions with various sizes of hash tables to see what happens. But I can't believe (except for some endings) that we are talking even 50% speed changes...
This page took 0.01 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.