Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 06:58:27 05/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2004 at 06:34:05, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On May 09, 2004 at 06:15:15, Graham Banks wrote: > >>I've discovered the reason for Hiarcs 9 poor performance and I'm too embarrassed >>to divulge why, but it's my fault. I've pulled Hiarcs 9 out of the tournament >>and will rerun all its games at the end. What was the wrong thing with it's setup? >> >>Also when doublechecking everything else I found SmarThink 0.17a has only been >>using 20mb hash as opposed to all other programs using 128mb! This was due to >>the incorrect setting in its ini file. So I will also pull SmarThink 0.17a out >>and rerun all its games also. >> >>So the tournament crosstable with 10 engines will conclude this week and then >>the Hiarcs 9 and SmarThink 0.17a games will be rerun. >>Very annoying and I apologise. However it will all be worthwhile in the end! > > > Hi Graham > Such things can happen. But it's fine that you are going to > rerun all games. As far as SmarThink 017.a is concerned I > do not think that there will be much difference in performance > between 20 MB and 128 MB hash. The importance of big hash > size is much overestimated. Interesting to see if your games > will support my "theory". Yeah, i also don't think the difference would be important. I believe that a 20 MB hash instead of 128 MB, means something about 1 point less out of 35 games. Of course i may be wrong. > Kurt & Rolf Chess: http://www.utzingerkurt.com
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.