Author: Johan de Koning
Date: 17:04:49 05/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2003 at 18:31:00, Christophe Theron wrote: >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. That would work. Since I insist on clearing at every search (predictability!), I use only 1 bit per entry. In a separate small array of course, else it would still be equally slow. [snip] >I'm glad to see you posting here. I'll take that as a compliment. :-) But I find it rather exhausting since it is very hard to stop posting. Next time at Leiden I'll let Tiger win again, just to generate a little less attention for The King. Though I did definitly enjoy the countless congratulations!
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.