Author: James T. Walker
Date: 14:30:36 06/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2001 at 11:49:35, Ed Panek wrote: >On June 13, 2001 at 11:00:11, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On June 12, 2001 at 20:44:58, Ed Panek wrote: >> >>>Athlon 1.3Ghz 192 MBhash tables.. >>> >>>14:16:34.9 -0.50 25 -1715898192 >>>07:27:40.6 -0.44 24 -344954985 >>>00:00:31.9 -0.42 14 13011609 >>>00:12:59.1 -0.36 20 339922649 >>> >>>Same position PIII 800 48 MB HASH tables >>> >>>17:57:26.9 -0.44 24 -1100754853 >>>00:00:45.8 -0.42 14 13392336 >>>00:23:58.1 -0.36 20 436641487 >>>Bigger difference than I thought >>> >>> >>>This is from the current Gt2 vs the web position >>> >>> >>>Ed >> >>Hello Ed, >>I have no idea what your numbers above mean but it seems to me that if you want >>to compare processor speed you need to use the same amount of hash memory. I >>can't get to the game to see what the position is like but if it's close to an >>endgame or deep into an endgame the hash tables can make a very big difference. >>Jim > > >Hi Jim thanks for the reply..typically in computer chess the above means > >time-score-depth-nodes > >This position is close to an endgame. I understand that hash etc makes a big >difference in search speed, but I never imagined it could be so dramatic. 13 >minutes to 24 minutes to depth 20 for example. > > >Ed Hello Ed, Well I still haven't seen the position but I have seen positions where the hash makes a big difference. In your case you also have a cpu Mhz difference which accounts for a lot of the difference. That's why I would like to see the numbers with the same hash size. Jim
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.