Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: benchmark test for fun (and for Vincent) , that means *1.862 Speedup

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:36:39 09/06/02

Go up one level in this thread


On September 06, 2002 at 08:54:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On September 05, 2002 at 11:07:38, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>It should affect nps. This is the diffrence between you and
>me. You assume too much for data instead of doing tests
>correctly.


Should I post some data to show I assume _nothing_?  You see, that is
the difference between you and myself.  I _don't_ assume anything.  I
don't wave my arms and "proof" things.  I just run the tests and let
the data fall where it may.

Here goes...

Default hash size = 3M bytes
              time=22.76  cpu=95%  mat=0  n=8890939  fh=92%  nps=390k
Going up to hash=12M bytes
              time=22.52  cpu=95%  mat=0  n=8809597  fh=92%  nps=391k
Next stop hash=48M
              time=23.90  cpu=96%  mat=0  n=9347280  fh=93%  nps=391k


Now I _know_ you are never going to admit you are wrong.  You are simply
going to wave your arms and explain why it _always_ gets faster with more
hash, but my test was flawed because I didn't search long enough, or I
searched two long, or I ran the test in a month that has "r" in its name,
or something else.

But for me, hash size doesn't affect nps much.  In the above, .1% better from
3M to 12M and no further improvement.  I went to 192M on my laptop with no
change from the 391K.

Anything to say?

BTW, for those wanting to do this test, I did the following:  I am going to
run it yet again, but from the opening position this time.  I simply cleared
the .craftyrc file, typed "book off", "sd=12" and "go".

hash=3m (default):
              time=23.27  cpu=97%  mat=0  n=6253934  fh=87%  nps=268k
hash=12m:
              time=23.01  cpu=99%  mat=0  n=6452530  fh=87%  nps=280k
hash=48m:
              time=22.78  cpu=97%  mat=0  n=6139314  fh=87%  nps=269k

Little change.  12M was a bit faster, but also searched more nodes for
unknown reasons.  48M produced a tree slightly smaller than 3M, and
the NPS was back to within 1K.

As I said, "hash size doesn't have any significant effect on NPS."

I stand by that statement, because the evidence clearly supports it.

Twice.






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.