Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:08:52 05/31/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 1998 at 12:43:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 31, 1998 at 03:32:56, Don Dailey wrote: > >>On May 30, 1998 at 09:56:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 30, 1998 at 02:28:02, Steven Juchnowski wrote: >>> >>>>How much does hash table size effect performance? >>>> >>>>On one hand we hear that Fritz5 can gain about 40 ELO points by >>>>increasing the hash size from 44MB to 100MB. >>>> >>>>On the other hand there are claims that doubling the hash size will >>>>only improve performance by a few ELO points. >>>> >>>>I assume the above claims are based on tournament time controls. >>>> >>>>So which is the real picture, or is it perhaps that the sensitivity of >>>>hash >>>>size on performance varies from program to program. >>>> >>>>Regards >>> >>> >>>there are at least a couple of things that could make Fritz far more >>>sensitive to hash table size than other programs: >>> >>>(1) a poor replacement strategy. If this is true, then a larger table >>>reduces replacement, which would produce better performance. >>> >>>(2) using the table for other things besides the normal score/best move/ >>>etc. If this is true, replacing *any* entry could be bad, depending on >>>what is stored in the table. >>> >>>no one knows what Fritz does, but one of the above reasons is almost >>>certain to be correct. I'd suspect (2) myself, since replacement >>>strategies are well-known now. >> >>Is Fritz actually more sensitive to hash table size, or does it just >>need bigger hash tables than the other programs? My impression >>was that it probably hashed into quies and was so fast it needed >>bigger tables than most others. >> >>If Crafty was 100X faster (on the same hardware), would you consider >>your program more "sensitive" to hash table size than the others? >> >>My opinion is that Fritz's speed just makes it need more memory. >> >>I have a hard time believing reason 2 is likely. I agree with you >>that reason 1 is also unlikely. My opinion is that Fritz's speed >>just makes it need more memory and this makes it appear to be >>"sensitive" to hash table size. >> >>If you were fed 200 calories a day, people might think you were >>calorie sensitive. He seems to perform much better with just >>an extra 200 calories added to his diet! >> >>Let me think some more about your second suggestion as a possibility. >> >>- Don > > >I don;t think it is an "overflow" issue. IE I ran a few tests last year >with Cray Blitz on a T90, searching about 5M nodes per second... and >the >variability I saw was about 30% from way too small to way too big. So >bigger was better, but not a lot better. I suspect they store other >things >(ala hsu's "sticky transposition table" only more-so) that costs them >dearly to compute when they don't find it in the hash... but that's >only >a "SWAG"... Could you or Don explain what "sticky transposition table" are. Thanks Mark
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.