Author: John Merlino
Date: 12:07:01 04/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2005 at 12:41:04, pavel wrote: >On April 03, 2005 at 11:31:56, pavel wrote: > >>I have used all the CM versions since 6000. But my favourite one was CM9000. >>What do you guys think? >>There is something about CM10 I just don't like. I can't seem to understand what >>is it. It's probably the new look. Also the Database import (from PGN) function >>of CM9000 was much much (almost 10times) faster than CM10. >>I was trying to import a 1 million PGN games database into CM10 format. After >>leaving it working on it for more than 20 hours on a P4 2.66 it was barely 50% >>done. On comparison CM9 is crunching on the database, like it's on steroid. >> >>I never really fiddled with CM database features. I am looking for a Database >>that's extremely fast while doing positional search, at the same time the >>database is not too bloated. Scid is OK is this regard. It's kinda slow in a >>position search. And I hate the fact that it loads the whole database in the >>memory every time you open it; try opening a 4million game database in SCID when >>you have 750mb memory. PosBase is amazingingly fast but the database format is >>hugely bloated, even more than PGN format. And there seems to be a serious bug >>in the program. >> >>CM9 is the winner so far in terms of features that I am looking for. It also >>seems to avoid importing games that's already in the database. I am not sure if >>it's true. If it is the case. It would be an awesome feature. >> >>pavs > > >Does CM9 have a limitation of importing games from PGN files? It stopped at >300,000. To comment on both of your posts: I'm very surprised that CMX is slow in importing to the database. It is impossible that the Romanian team could have fiddled with the database code unless it is a completely new database format, rather than the old TASCBase code that CM6000-9000 had. More on that later. The only other way this could have happened (and it is probably more likely), is that some code for updating the new interface gets called with each imported game, causing a massive slowdown due to graphics issues. I have yet to see CMX, but I can understand how fans of the series may be a bit put off by the new interface. IMO, it WAS time for a change of scenery, but whether or not the Romanian team got it right on the first try will remain to be seen. I have heard mixed reviews, with some saying that they love the look of the new interface. But, back to the database. Yes, there is a limitation on the number of games in the database, but it has nothing to do with the actual NUMBER of games. It has to do with how different the games are from each other. If you made a database of only Sicilian Dragon games, I suspect you could fit close to 600K games in the database. If you try to import a PGN file with lots of bizarre and unique games, you are going to come up against the limit pretty quickly, although I'm surprised that you hit it at 300K. I've never seen it fail at less than 400K games. This limitation goes all the way back to the initial code (or, rather, LIBRARY)that we (then Mindscape) purchased from TASC for CM6000. Since Mindscape never owned the actual code for the database, we could not fix bugs in it. Perhaps we should have tried to buy it from TASC when they went out of business -- oh well. jm
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.