Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: is the

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 07:52:22 07/31/98

Go up one level in this thread

On July 31, 1998 at 08:09:20, Komputer Korner wrote:
>Why do you say that I am upset? I am just pointing out observations.As it turns
>out I think that WIN 95 does about the same job as WIN NT when allocating memory
>to its cache. Because it grabs about 20Mb for itself, this has a large negative
>effect on large hash tables on machines with 64Mb of RAM or less. Because of
>this I recommend that all computer owners have at least 128 Mb of RAM in their
>machines. With that amount you can allocate up to 90 Mb ( maybe only 64 Mb
>because of block hashing)  of RAM without swapping.

Maybe you aren't upset, but the amount of work you've put into your observations
and the tone of voice you use when you talk about this implies (to me) that
you're trying to find some sort of scandal here.

As for recommending 128 MB RAM to everybody, WHY????? Why in the _world_ do you
need 90 MB of RAM for a hash table?? Isn't the rule of thumb that doubling the
hash table size increases strength by 10 points? Do you think Joe User needs
those 10 points badly enough to spend $80 for them? Are they that sorely missed?

And what, pray tell, is "block hashing"?


This page took 0.01 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.