Author: Brian Katz
Date: 04:28:07 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 05:49:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 21, 2002 at 05:36:23, Brian Katz wrote: > >> Here is an interesting experiment involving Hash Table settings. >>This was run on a single processor 350MHz Pent II 384 SDRAM with Nalimov 4 disc >>Endgame Turbo plus additional downloaded 5 piece endgames and Permanent Brain >>turned off. >> >> For my computer's speed the proper HASH TABLE settings for game 5/12 should be >>16 MB. I have found that 32MB has always worked well, however. >>As an experiment, since I believe Fritz 7 performs better than Deep-Fritz 7 when >>using a single processor (even though Chessbase boasts otherwise, stating that >>DF7 is stronger even when usning a single processor). >> I raised the Hash Table settings for Fritz 7 to 192 MB as opposed to >>Deep-Fritz 7 set at 32 MB Hash. >> Surely, 192 should be much too high for such a time control with my processor >>speed. Well, Fritz 7 still beat out Deep-Fritz 7 by 5.0-3.0 > >5-3 is not a significant result and I also think that the effect of hash is >very small here and I doubt if 32 is better than 128 for Fritz. > >Another point: >I think that it may be interesting to compare nodes per second of Fritz7 and >Deep Fritz7 on your processor and on the ssdf processors that are faster. > >It is possible that when chessbase said that Deep Fritz7 is better on single >processor they thought only about the fast processors and it is possible that >Deep Fritz7 was simply not oprimized for the slow processors. > >Uri Hi Uri I had raised this question in a recent post. It is possible that DF7 cannot realize it's full benefit as opposed to Fritz 7 on a slow processor. The other question does concern me, however. And that is the tablebase question. I have already found on many many occasions that Fritz 7 comes out ahead on my processor, but shouldn't such HIGH HashTable settings for such a short time control hindered Fritz 7's result? That I find puzzling! Thank you for your insightful words acknowledging the fact that I may have had similar previous results. Just like in experiments, one shouldn't jump to conclusions too fast. I am just raising questions. I think that after a few hundred games there may be something to what I have found. Unfortunately the previous poster has jumped to conclusions. Thanks again Brian
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.