Author: Brett Clark
Date: 21:47:17 07/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 1999 at 21:13:47, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >Today I have received e-mail from Mark Uniacke answering my question about hash >tables for Hiarcs 7.32. I would like to thank Mr. Uniacke for providing the >following information in regards to the hash table question: > >"Please give it as much hash tables as possible. Although Hiarcs is slower than >the fast searchers it maintains hash table information continually (with a >suitable replacement strategy of course) so please give it as much as you can. >In game play this makes a difference. In individual test positions the advantage >is less." > >I hope this information is of value to others who have wondered about the >question of hash tables. > >Regards, >Mel Mr. President, Thanks for all of the work that you've done on the Hiarcs hash tables. I think that Mr. Uniacke's statement needs to be qualified, because if you're playing a 5 min. blitz game with Hiarcs, I don't think that it is going to perform at optimum strength if you give it 64 MB of hash tables. There has got to be a correlation between the nodes per second, the average time per move, and the hash table size. The longer the time control, the bigger the hash tables. Hiarcs fills the hash tables at about 1/10 the rate of Fritz, so I still don't see the point in giving Hiarcs huge hash tables. Best regards, Brett
This page took 0.01 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.