Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 02:20:10 08/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2003 at 00:12:33, Keith Evans wrote:
>On July 31, 2003 at 23:14:28, Slater Wold wrote:
>
>>On July 31, 2003 at 21:34:13, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On July 31, 2003 at 19:41:38, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 31, 2003 at 19:29:14, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On July 31, 2003 at 18:41:50, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On July 31, 2003 at 08:27:55, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On July 31, 2003 at 02:45:21, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On July 30, 2003 at 18:50:33, Slater Wold wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Time Control = 5/5
>>>>>>>>>Shreder 7.04 - Dual P4 3.06Ghz - +3 -15 =1 (10 loses on time)
>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz 7 - Dual AMD 2.3Ghz - +1 -8 =3 (11 loses on time)
>>>>>>>>>Time Control = 15/5
>>>>>>>>>Deep Fritz 7 - Dual AMD 2.3Ghz - +0 -0 =1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Slate,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have been playing this under Chesspartner I assume?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have no idea, everything looks fine here but I haven't played Rebel on ICC
>>>>>>>>yet. Maybe it is related to the permanent brain, that wouldn't be the first time
>>>>>>>>and you should turn off pondering for this version playing ICC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Total of 12 hours on ICC = +4 -23 =5 (And 23 loses on time.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That must have been frustrating for you :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyway, thanks for pointing this out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Games will follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Using 200MB hash, I haven't lost on time in 15 games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think using 400MB hash is what was locking up the search.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have 1GB of RAM, but....it does seem that the hash was the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And now it's not losing on time, and doing much better against it's opponents.
>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>400 MB hash in a blitz game!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is always going to be a problem. Even if it could move on time, it's going
>>>>>>to play crappy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think of how long it takes to clear out 400 MB of memory.
>>>>>
>>>>>On a P4? Not long.
>>>
>>>Longer than you think, I'll guess.
>>>Try this program:
>>>
>>>#include <assert.h>
>>>#include <stdio.h>
>>>#include <string.h>
>>>#include <stdlib.h>
>>>#include <time.h>
>>>
>>>
>>>int main(void)
>>>{
>>> clock_t start,
>>> end;
>>> size_t i;
>>> size_t ramsize = 400U * 1024U * 1024U;
>>> void *hash = malloc(ramsize);
>>> if (hash) {
>>> assert(ramsize > 4e8); /* some compilers might overflow */
>>> start = clock();
>>> for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
>>> memset(hash, 0, ramsize);
>>> end = clock();
>>> printf("Each clearing of the hash took %.0f seconds\n",
>>> (end - start) * 1.0 / CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
>>> }
>>> return 0;
>>>}
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But Rebel uses a swap file, which is probably a bit of a problem. Even on an
>>>>>U320 SCSI drive.
>>>>
>>>>During blitz games Rebel only uses a small part of the hash table, no swapping
>>>>possible. See the PARAM.TXT file.
>>>
>>>But apparently, it's irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>I stand corrected. ;)
>>
>>49 seconds.
>
>What am I missing? It seems like this should be 49 / 100 seconds...?
>
>There's just no way that 49 seconds makes any sense. That would be a memory
>bandwidth of 400/49 = 8 MB/s which is obviously wrong.
>
>-Keith
Divide by 100.
Looks like 1/2 second.
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.