Author: blass uri
Date: 12:10:03 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 1999 at 14:56:07, James T. Walker wrote: >On July 06, 1999 at 14:18:31, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>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 > >Hello Mel, >My next experiment was to be testing Hiarcs with more hash memory since it gave >disappointing results using only 4 meg hash at game/5min. Well the first test >finished today and the results are very interesting. I gave Hiarcs 64 Meg of >hash memory for Game/5min test vs Fritz which also had 64 Meg hash tables. The >first 100 games ended with Hiarcs winning 64-36. In case you don't remember in >my first 200 bitz games Fritz won by 106.5 to 93.5 so this is quite an >improvement. Also my Hiarcs now has more "Experience" and the learning file is >growing. Beating Fritz 5.32 by 64% is pretty impressive. Untill now I >considered Fritz the absolute best at Blitz. Now Hiarcs is in charge! > >So the bottom line is, I do appreciate your info that you got from Mark. It has >made a big difference. Apparently there is something very strange in the way >Hiarcs uses hash tables without resetting them. It seems to work very well. >Jim Walker I think that you gave Fritz too much hash tables. I think you should follow Fritz's formula for hash tables and give Fritz less hash tables in blitz. I know that I can beat chessmaster6000 in 1 minute per game if I give it big hash tables because chessmaster is losing on time. I guess Fritz did not lose on time but even if you assume that Fritz is only slower by 1 second per move then it may effect the result in blitz games. Uri
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.