Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:03:08 02/06/06
Go up one level in this thread
You keep providing stuff that has _nothing_ to do with the topic being discussed. Here is a test I ran just now, to show you how silly your statements look: I varied the hash size with Crafty as follows: 3M, 6M, 12M, 24M, 48M, 96M, 192M, 384M I ran a normal middlegame position to depth=13, using just one cpu to avoid any SMP variance. Here's the times/nodes: log.002: time=4:45 mat=0 n=247340776 fh=89% nps=865K log.003: time=3:52 mat=0 n=201952429 fh=89% nps=867K log.004: time=2:52 mat=0 n=150627132 fh=89% nps=870K log.005: time=3:00 mat=0 n=157180245 fh=90% nps=870K log.006: time=2:53 mat=0 n=152600033 fh=90% nps=877K log.007: time=2:27 mat=0 n=128306131 fh=90% nps=870K log.008: time=2:27 mat=0 n=127485719 fh=90% nps=863K log.009: time=2:22 mat=0 n=124561460 fh=90% nps=872K 3M is the default. I'd personally want to use something on the upper end of the hash sizes here. Or would you _really_ want to give up a factor of 2x in speed and use the default? (4:45 / 2:22 == 2.0) So as you can see, your facts are wrong, your argument is invalid, and your conclusions are based on who-knows-what... Now, for the last time, stop this before you get stopped.
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.