Author: William Penn
Date: 13:40:10 08/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2003 at 15:44:00, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On August 28, 2003 at 15:39:19, William Penn wrote: > >>Are these Shreddermarks normal? >> >>AMD Athlon XP 2400+ processor, 2.0 GHz, 640MB installed, 608MB available, >>Windows XP Home, Shredder 7 >> >> 4MB hash, Shreddermark=1591, 391kN/s >> 64MB hash, Shreddermark=1392, 349kN/s >>128MB hash, Shreddermark=1113, 291kN/s >>256MB hash, Shreddermark= 856, 222kN/s >>384MB hash, Shreddermark= 655, 179kN/s >>432MB hash, Shreddermark= 618, 165kN/s >>455MB hash, Shreddermark= 618, 161kN/s (maximum hash) >> >>I don't understand why the Shreddermark and kN/s decreases as the amount of hash >>is increased. That's what concerns me. >> >>I presume that the more hash allocated then the faster the engine is supposed to >>calculate. If so, then why does the speed decrease with more hash? >>WP > > >64 MB hash has always been the magic number at fast time control for most top >programs, but 128MB is fine too for standard time control :-) > >Pichard I don't play chess. I only use infinite time control and run it for at least one hour per move, sometimes overnight -- to try to determine the "truth" in the position (if there is one!?). I'm finding that I get normal kN/s speeds with practical chess positions using 455MB hash, not a big slowdown as indicated by the Shreddermarks. So I still don't understand them. WP
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.