Author: William Penn
Date: 22:26:31 03/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
>>I only suggest reduced hash size in situations where tablebase access is
>>extremely heavy. There's no point to it otherwise, except I've noticed that
>>smaller hash size spits out analysis "legs" quicker. {Leg=analysis completed at
>>a particular ply level} Big hash size takes longer to finish the calculations at
>>a particular ply level.
>
>Then you have something broken. If bigger has slows the program down when
>tablebases are not accessed, something is wrong.. And since they are not
>accessed in most positions, bigger hash should generally always be better.
Note that I'm running in infinite analysis mode for long periods of time,
usually several hours to analyze each position.
Bigger hash lengthens the legs. I define a leg as completion of analysis at a
particular ply level. After completion of a leg, the analysis is spit out for
the user to see as text in the engine window. The more hash, then generally the
longer the time used for calculating each leg, the difference being that the
analysis goes a little deeper with more hash (apparently) with the Shredder 8
engine. The program speed as indicated by kN/s isn't slowed down a lot, but is
always a little less with larger hash.
>add another gig. Now your 512mb hash will work just fine... leaving over 1gig
>for the filesystem cache...
I already have the maximum, 1G for this box. I'm not convinced (have no faith)
that the Windows XP op system would use more RAM advantageously. I'd have to see
it to believe it.
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.