Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:29:28 09/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2002 at 12:07:07, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >Probably I should post the results on the system with default 3Mb hash and then >on the same system with 250Gb hash :-) Watch out... ND and all that. :) I don't know where these "vincent urban legends" come from however. I don't see what hashing has in common with NPS in any significant way, unless you get into simple positions like fine70. Maybe I'll try that to see as it ought to be a best case for hash hits... > >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.