Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:20:01 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2001 at 22:03:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 22, 2001 at 18:29:46, Andreas De Troy wrote: > >>When I see results for the so called "Fritzmarks", I notice that the actual >>numbers decrease with increasing hashtables. Is this an artefact of the >>measurement? In other words, are larger hashtables always better? I suppose it >>depends of the speed of the processor. If you have, for instance an Athlon 1 Ghz >>(or a 1.5 Ghz or...), does it -in general- make sense to increase the size of >>the hashtables to 256 Mb, 512 Mb or more? >> >>Thanks in advance for any help! > > >You are comparing apples and oranges. Apples = NPS, oranges = time to >reach a specific search depth. Larger hash tables will slightly lower >NPS for some programs. But it will speed up time-to-ply, until the hash >becomes too large. At that point, no further improvement will be seen, >but larger won't hurt at all unless you go so large you cause paging. I have never seen a 'hashtable too large'. I only know that hashtable mercilous punishes forward pruning experiments when talking about branching factor in the long run.
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.