Author: Derek Winter
Date: 18:46:48 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 14:01:59, Charles Worthington wrote: >Why would anyone need a hash table in excess of 640MB anyhow? Too much hash is >worse for performance than too little. If 80% is your hash remains empty then >the programs has to spend too much time searching for the stored positions. It >can actually recalculate them faster than it can find that needle in a haystack. >In most time controls on the server 256 is most you will need. In blitz I think >anything over 64 is killing performance. I am told that for like 3+2 32 MB and >under is sufficient but i lose kNs when i drop that low so i stay at 64. Who said anything about blitz. We are talking about overnight analysis. If you look at the Steve Lopez' formula for optimal hash size, it gets rather large for 4 minutes/move.
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.