Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 16:10:07 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 If it is too big, I guess that the probability of collisions increases (with entries of old searches that were not overwritten). Now, this might depend a lot on how many bits are used. On the other hand, if the tables are erased or processed in any way in each move the bigger table could be a problem. Regards, Miguel > >-- >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.