Author: Robert Raese
Date: 21:18:14 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2001 at 23:52:17, Thomas Scherk wrote: >>On this computer I would recommend 192Mb hash tables and 32Mb TB cache. >> >>But please make sure that this setting does not slow the program down >>dramatically. It depends on your system, so please try with for example one >>middlegame position and one deep endgame position. >> >>Try with 64Mb HT and 192Mb HT. Set up the program to reach a fixed depth on your >>middlegame position. If the NPS is almost the same with 64Mb and 192Mb, then >>it's OK to use 192Mb HT. >> >>Then set the HT to 192Mb (if it is OK), then load the endgame position. Same >>experiment at fixed depth, but this time with 1Mb TB cache and 32Mb TB cache. >> >>But that's a very classical way to test these things, I'm sure you are used to >>this procedure already. >> >> >> >> Christophe > >Dear Christophe, > >I think Bertil tells us, that the Computer has 256 MB. Depending on the OS, he >is using, and depending on the loading of some drivers, maybe Ethernet, Sound, >VGA with high resolution and 32 Bits depth Colour, there will be only about 180 >MB left from these 256 MB. > >You write "...same with 64 MB and 192 MB...". Is this right? I was told by >ChessBase that you can use any amount of hashtables but it must be an amount >computed with the formula 3*2^n MB. Is this right? thomas... i'm not very mathematical... what is "^n"?
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.