Author: Steve Lopez
Date: 15:18:12 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 16:45:09, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On April 09, 2002 at 23:21:47, James T. Walker wrote: > >>I see nothing >>to indicate that 256 Meg hash is "too big" and causes a Fritz labotomy. > >I haven't tested it, but I would be surprised if Fritz >had _any_ kind of trouble with using huge hashtables >for fast timecontrols. Most likely bigger=better, no >matter what (*). > >There was a discussion about the info in the T-Notes >a week or so ago, and I think that the general conclusion >was that they are occasionally full of nonsense. > >(*) of course, as long as it actually fits into RAM and >no swapping takes place > >-- And, as I said in that discussion, I stand by what I wrote. The information came directly from the programmers, though it is possible that the disk swapping scenario plays into their comments. -- Steve Lopez ------------------------------------------------- The Chess Kamikaze Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/ludekdudek/ The Chess Kamikaze Club: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chesskamikazes/ >GCP
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.