Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 00:32:42 08/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 06, 2002 at 17:22:33, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >I prefer to have it easier. Have one mem size for any adjustable internal tables >besides TBs that are of possibly significant size and unadjustable tables that >are of significant size. But still have another size for TBs. When I call my >engine for analysis, I typically have (when dedicating my small memory old >computer) 40 MBs for "mem" (besides the code space and often accessed internal >data used). I use this for hash in a middlegame pos. In an endgame pos, I would >use perhaps 30M. In both cases, I would give 2 M TB cache. In the first case, >this would never be accessed. In the second case, it would be accessed, and also >the internal compression tables, which make a bit more (with my few 5-men TBs >installed). Then I still get about 7 M for OS-cache, which can speed up endgame >analysis significantly (TB positions are cached there in compressed form, and >for my conditions, this typically performs better than giving a bigger internal >TB cache). So, I believe 2 memory sizes would be preferable. I am not saying to throw out the "hash" command, I am suggesting to add a "mem" command. That means that advanced users (like the programmers :) )can still set the hash table the way they do now. >Some other thoughts about the "base memory usage" of the engine. Say my engine >includes a lot of "tools": for creating/manipulating books/PGN files/whatever. >If this needs 1MB - do I have to count it? For (say) an engine match, that >code/data won't be used - and can (and in tight memory situations will) be >swapped out. No negative consequences at all. Should we count this unused >memory? Not allways, using more RAM than available is bad - otherwise, we would >not need virtual memory. I agree that that is a problem. I would go for putting your tools into an extra program. Or add a compile switch to include/exclude them. > >Say, the engine has some internal table for "learn stuff" - and this must be >resized during a game. Should such a "mem" command really force the engine to >now make the hash tables a bit smaller, and clear them by doing this? If I know that I might need more memory for learning I have to use less hash in the beginning. Doesnt that sound fair ? > >I believe, perfect fairness is not possible here - and one should have a more >pragmatic and less strict solution. > Doesnt have to be a 100% solution. But when I see that people stress that each engine got 32MB hash and one of them uses additional 32MB and the other one 1 additional MB that sounds odd, doesnt it ? Greetings, Georg
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.