Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:51:36 04/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2001 at 00:18:14, Robert Raese wrote: >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"? I will explain by some examples because I think that it is more easy to understand things by seeing examples then by a formal definition: 2^2=2*2=4 2^3=2*2*2=8 2^4=2*2*2*2=16 2^5=2*2*2*2*2=32 Uri
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.