Author: James T. Walker
Date: 15:24:40 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 18:18:12, Steve Lopez wrote: >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 ***************** Hello Steve, How long ago did you get this info?? I believe it was valid for Fritz 5 but I now have over 700 games at G/2minutes with Fritz 7 using 256M with no apparent decrease in strength. Jim ***************** > >------------------------------------------------- >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.