Author: Brian Katz
Date: 12:03:23 01/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2003 at 14:57:51, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 24, 2003 at 14:33:28, Joshua Haglund wrote: > >>On January 24, 2003 at 10:09:31, Andrew R. Case wrote: >> >>>On January 24, 2003 at 08:59:28, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>On January 24, 2003 at 01:04:17, Brian Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>>In the following famous position, which I am sure many of you are familiar with, >>>>>Botvinnik - Capablanca, AVRO Holland 1938 1-0...White (Botvinnik) played the >>>>>extraordinary 30.Ba3!! and went onto win Brilliantly. >>>>>The remaining moves were:30...Qxa3 31.Nh5+! gxh5 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 >>>>>Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+ 40.g4 Qe1+ >>>>>41.Kh5 Black Resigns 1-0 >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/p3q1kp/1p2Pnp1/3pQ3/2pP4/1nP3N1/1B4PP/6K1 w >>>>> >>>>>My question is will running full games with Fritz 7......................... >>>>>Hash Tables set at 818 MB cause heat problems for an AMD Athlon 2600+ 1 gig of >>>>>DDR SDRAM. >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>I have beeb experimenting with Fritz 7 Hash Table settings in the infinite >>>>>analysis mode. >>>>>Here are some results based on various Hash Table settings. Time to find 30.Ba3 >>>>>as a winning move not just to see it in the list of alternatives. Also nodes per >>>>>second. >>>>>At 818 MB Hash, I hear no extra work on the harddrive, only when first setting >>>>>the Hash at 818 for a few seconds then no more. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The results from 16,32,64,128,256,and 512 MB Hash Tables respectively were all >>>>>basically the same. >>>>> >>>>>At 16MB it took 3 seconds to notice that 30.Ba3...=(-0.16) and Black is better >>>>>and then it drops to 0.00...Then at 1:33 it jumps to + 0.34 in favor of White. >>>>>Then at 3 min 15 secs.it jumps to +-(3.97) kN/s at 1116. >>>>> >>>>>At 256 MB it took 3 seconds to notice that 30.Ba3...=(-0.16) and Black is better >>>>>and again drops to =(0.00)...Then at 1:05 it jumps to + 0.34 in favor of White. >>>>>Then at 2:00 it jumps to +-(3.31) at 1064 kn/s >>>>> >>>>>Now at 512 MB everything is basically the same except the value at 1:02 is at >>>>>+0.50 rather than the + 0.34 as above. Then at 1:57 it goes to +- 3.88 >>>>> >>>>>At 768 the only real difference is that the value at the 1:00 minute mark is >>>>>down at + 0.34 >>>>> >>>>>At 818 I get similar results early on then at 1:03 + 0.50 which is higher than >>>>>the reading at 768 MB setting, and 2:08 the Highest value at this early stage +- >>>>>(3.97) kN's flucuate in the low 1000's in all of the settings listed except when >>>>>set at the 16 MB Hash which was in the 1100's. >>>>> >>>>>So basically, will the higher value in the same time period such as the + 0.50 >>>>>as opposed to the + 0.34 make a difference in a game. Will the higher Hash Table >>>>>818 MB settin, yielding an evaluation + 3.99 at 2:10 be better than the + 3.88 >>>>>at 1:58 with the lower Hash Table setting? >>>>> >>>>>My main concern is that I do not want to over tax my processor. >>>>> >>>>>If anyone has some insight on this It would be greatly appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thanks >>>>>Brian Katz >>>> >>>>Hello Brian, >>>>How do you get Fritz 7 to accept 818M hash setting. Anything I set over 288M >>>>seems to default to 287 as noted in the "Notation" window where the moves are >>>>displayed. >>>>Jim >>> >>> >>> The reason you can't get hash tables larger than 287mb is your >>>operating system. Only windows nt, 2000, or xp can make use of larger hash >>>tables. >> >>I find it's from the amount of ram... a certain percentage, say 75% > >I have 768 Meg of ram. I still can only get Fritz to accept 287M. However I >can get Shredder in the same GUI to accept 608M. So maybe Fritz has a problem >with Win98 but Shredder does not. >Jim I am presently running the Windows Professional XP operating system with the AMD Athlon 2600+ 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.