Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:49:34 03/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2003 at 20:36:12, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On March 29, 2003 at 17:26:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I don't see anything "contrary to Hyatt's assertion." >> >>It _might_ depend on implementation details as well. I'll try to run a >>similar test tonight and post the results. I haven't tested it since >>"Komputer Korner" posed the question and I tried it a few years ago in >>r.g.c.c > >And here is the data you came up with then: > >depth 9: >time bytes entries nodes searched >------------------------------------------- > 1:05 96kb 6K 12,139,882 > 1:00 192kb 12K 11,245,725 > 54.5 384kb 24K 9,995,634 > 55.1 768kb 49K 10,131,840 > 52.3 1.5M 98K 9,567,818 > 46.3 3M 196K 8,463,339 > 44.5 6M 392K 8,119,062 > 43.5 12M 800K 7,932,811 > 43.0 24M 1.5M 7,833,488 > 42.9 48M 3.0M 7,802,585 > 42.7 96M 6.0M 7,779,999 > 42.7 192M 12.0M 7,779,122 > 42.7 384M 24.0M 7,778,994 > >depth 11: >time bytes entries nodes searched >------------------------------------------- >13:13 96kb 6K 157,085,451 >12:03 192kb 12K 142,633,162 >10:31 384kb 24K 123,762,238 > 9:28 768kb 49K 110,838,220 > 8:38 1.5M 98K 100,802,339 > 7:48 3M 196K 90,979,000 > 7:22 6M 392K 85,975,960 > 6:53 12M 800K 80,347,212 > 6:32 24M 1.5M 76,465,119 > 6:22 48M 3.0M 74,738,532 > 6:13 96M 6.0M 73,253,374 > 6:05 192M 12.0M 71,581,397 > 6:03 384M 24.0M 71,156,722 > >So, varying hash size from 3MB to 384MB only yields about 25% decrease in nodes >searched at depth 11, and less than 9% decrease at depth 9. Sure. But _now_ a normal search depth is 12-13 plies. Which changes things a lot. I posted a set of new data for the current Crafty, and the results seem to follow a similar trend, except that the optimal size has increased quite a bit due to faster hardware...
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.