Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:31:00 05/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2003 at 03:16:00, Johan de Koning wrote:
>On May 27, 2003 at 00:26:14, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On May 26, 2003 at 11:22:09, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>
>>>On May 26, 2003 at 02:40:49, Andre van Ark wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 26, 2003 at 02:06:37, Heinz-Josef Schumacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>If you want my opinion it doesn't make any sense. Or I need a good explanation,
>>>>>>and some evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Exact my opinion! This rumour is in Germany in many heads, but without any
>>>>>evidence! More than 32 MB hash tables perhaps not useful for the King, but not
>>>>>bad! People had only misunderstood an old statement by Johan.
>>>>
>>>>Good day,
>>>>
>>>>32 MB is being used because Johan used in Leiden 30 MB.
>>>>
>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>Andre van Ark
>>>
>>> From own [old] tests under CM9-GUI in the analysis mode, I can remember
>>> that some positions could not be solved at all or not within reasonable
>>> time if hash tables were set higher than 32 MB hash. This may however be
>>> no longer a problem after the second patch has been released [I have
>>> however not investigated this]. And as Andre stated: Johan de Koning does
>>> not seem to use more than 32 MB hash and there must be some reason for that.
>>> Kurt
>>
>>The only reason I can think about is that there is some bug in The King hash
>>table management. Or some strange design decision. That's what you say suggests
>>to me, but I must add immediately that given the quality of Johan's work I don't
>>really believe that it is the case.
>
>A clearing delay you mentioned in another post was actually an issue with
>CM8000. But it was solved in the final patch (TK 3.12d). More importantly, it
>was a problem only with large TT *and* extremely fast time conrols.
Yes I had the same delay before each search in a previous version of Tiger and I
agree that it would have hurt only at very fast time controls.
So I guessed that it could not be the reason here.
BTW I fixed it by adding a "generation counter" in every HT entry. So now I do
not need to clear the hash table anymore and the delay has totally disappeared.
>And then there is hardware issues, causing random access to slow down with
>increasing access range. That's highly dependant of the hardware, so I'm not
>going to even try to make a statement about it. Except that I'm convinced it is
>about a few percent at the very most.
Yes, I have seen that as well, but in my experience the slowdown is always
compensated by the search speedup. Unless you use very fast time controls, once
again.
>But both issues do not apply here.
>And I'll have to agree with you that some bug is pretty unlikely. :-)
That's definitely not your style. :)
>>Anyway maybe it would be better if Johan could tell us what to do (and if
>>possible, why).
>
>Be happy (because then you will be happy)!
I'm glad to see you posting here.
In music, silence is valuable only because there are notes around it.
Christophe
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.