Author: William Penn
Date: 20:48:32 03/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2004 at 21:09:24, Richard Patterson wrote: >I have changed this from 10mg to 200mg. I have 1gb of ram so this should not be >an issue. I was trying to speed up the access to the tables by allowinf 200mg in >memory. Well am I all wet on this? I am still learning :) I use chessbase >programs shredder and deep fritz 8 . Thanks > >Richard I assume you mean MB (megabytes) rather than mg (a unit of weight measurement!). Also I have not heard of 10MB as a default for anything. I intuit that you may be talking about tablebase cache size. If so, I tried using a large tablebase cache and didn't find any advantage. I now use 8MB as recommended. Speeding up access to the tablebases requires something more fundamental such as a faster processor and/or faster hard drive. You can also make sure the tablebases are defragged, or on their own partition, which might help a little. You can also be sure your operating system and pagefile are optimized, which might help a little too. But basically tablebase access becomes intensive in endgames and the hard drive will become constantly active (I call it "churning"). There's no solution to that problem insofar as I'm aware. However, I have found that it in such situations, it may speed up things overall if you reduce hash size. For example when the endgame approaches I get best results with a hash size of 256MB. I have 1GB RAM installed and normally use larger hash sizes (512-784MB), but it seems to work better to use less hash in endgames. The engine speedup can be dramatic. 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.