Author: leonid
Date: 14:01:37 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 14:22:16, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >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. Saludos Jose, I am not against transpositional tables but I wanted to see what influence they have on NPS in every program. Bob H. said that there was no influence. I tried to see what it as in real life. After my few trial, Bob H. was completely right. Leonid.
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.