Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 09:07:07 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
Probably I should post the results on the system with default 3Mb hash and then on the same system with 250Gb hash :-) Thanks, Eugene On September 06, 2002 at 10:36:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.