Author: James T. Walker
Date: 15:20:33 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 > >-- >GCP Yes, that's the reason I ran the test. Conclusions without some data to back it up. So now I have at least some data. Also after some games my data indicated a slight advantage for 10 Meg vs 256 meg so I ran some more games and now the score for 256M vs 10M is 213-213. Anyway I've seen enough to conclude that 256M does not hurt Fritz 7 at fast time controls. 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.