Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: is the

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 12:59:56 08/02/98

Go up one level in this thread

On July 31, 1998 at 10:52:22, Tom Kerrigan wrote:

>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"?

Hi Tom,

I think he probably means "set associative" hash tables but I'm
not positive.  I have never heard this term block hashing.

- Don

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.