Author: Tony Werten
Date: 23:55:02 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 Then what does the - mean ? > >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. It has nothing to do with searchspeed. It has to do with the number of nodes visited. There are positions that cannot be solved without hashtables and are solved in 10 sec with them. (Actually, bigger hashtables will make the program slower, but this is compensated by the reduction in number of nodes ) Tony > > >Ed
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.