Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 11:18:31 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 1999 at 00:47:17, Brett Clark wrote: >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 Hello Brett, Have you tried e-mailing Mark Uniacke about your concerns? I believe he would be the only qualified individual to answer you properly. While you may appreciate the effort I have made in regards to Hiarcs hash tables, judging by what I see as your response has so far been the only one, I can only wonder if there are other people here who really care. I have made a great effort to not only get the hash table info, but also a strong effort to make ChessBase aware of the poor way Hiarcs was marketed. It appears to me that I may be the only one fighting this battle. Therefore, if people here don't mind all the confusion caused by the way Hiarcs has been marketed, why should I get involved with anything anymore? Where I come from, if a product is marketed in such a manner as Hiarcs 7.32, people would be screaming their heads off at the company for doing that. How are you going to get a company to improve not only their product, but also the way it's marketed if you don't voice your concern? I am totally disillusioned by what I see here on this site. I have seen so many people running around with their tail between their legs trying to find out this or that and wasting precious time while the company responsible for all comes out smelling like a rose. Does anybody besides you appreciate my effort in getting a response from Mr. Uniacke and posting it here...I wonder. Is the response from Mr. Uniacke satisfactory in regards to what you ask - probably not. However, I understand what he is saying in regards to a game when more is better. What impact does this have on Blitz chess I do not know.. I would suggest you explain your concerns regarding hash tables to Mark Uniacke. I am very sure he will answer your question. Regards, Mel
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.