Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 06:40:47 06/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 28, 1999 at 03:13:20, Terry Ripple wrote: >On June 27, 1999 at 22:16:37, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>On June 27, 1999 at 18:16:35, Brett Clark wrote: >> >>>On June 27, 1999 at 14:00:33, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Does anyone have factual information regarding the reason for both the short and >>>>long test? >>>> >>>>Question #2: How does these tests relate to the playing of a game at 40/2? >>>> >>>>Question #3: How many of these tests, either short or long are we supposed to >>>>run? >>>> >>>>Question #4: On what criteria do you base your answers to the above? >>>> >>>>Now, I ran a short test with 32 megs for hash tables and the score was 133 >>>>HiarcsMark 39kN/S. When I ran the same test with 64 megs, the score was 131 >>>>HiarcsMark 39 kN/S. >>>>At 145 megs the score was lower in kN/S and HiarcsMark. >>>> >>>>When I ran the long test with 32 megs of HT, the score was 280 HiarcsMark with >>>>35 kN/S. When I ran the same test with 64 megs for HT, the score was still 280 >>>>HiarcsMark but 34kN/S. Please keep in mind that I only ran one test for each >>>>set-up. Now, there is absolutely nothing in regards to how these tests relate to >>>>actual play or how many tests should be run - with Fritz 5.32 I believe it's all >>>>automatic. >>>> >>>>I thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Mel, Presdent of the Hiarcs Confusion Club. New menbers are welcome. There is no >>>>annual membership fee. The only requirement is to own Hiarcs 7.32 and the rest >>>>should come naturally. >>> >>>Melvin, at 32 KN/S Hiarcs 7.32 would take about 3 minutes to fill up 12 MB of >>>hash tables on your machine. I may be wrong, but I believe that if you give >>>Hiarcs 7.32 huge hash tables (i.e. Fritz), it may not perform as well. >> >>Where do you get 32 kN/S? My tests scored higher than that with both 32 & 64 >>megs for hash tables with both the short and long test. I appreciate your >>response but the questions about the meaning of short and long tests were not >>addressed. Also, to say with more hash tables it MAY not perform as well, >>doesn't really say very much. Facts, my dear fellow, are what I'm after. You can >>join the club if you desire. :-) >--------- >Try setting only 1MB of Hash Size and it will tip your Scale!! You need to try >and not take this test so seriously, but with just a grain of salt!! >Use the formula as it makes more sense than those silly tests that were supposed >to be used for the Fritz program. Fritz fills up the hash table 10- times faster >than Hiarcs7.32 so you need alot less MB than fritz!!! Hello Terry, You neglected to mention which test you are referring to - the short or the long? There is a difference. The long test produces a higher HiarcsMark. Now, I cannot believe your assumption about 1 or 2 MB's because I have Hiarcs 7 and when I ran it with 1 MB, it was awfully slow and used up that amount rather quickly. Also, I suspect we may be talking different time controls here. I play Hiarcs at 40/2. What time control do you use? Regards, Mel >------- >Terry
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.