Author: Steve
Date: 17:46:00 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
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 I too am interested in the hashtable information and thank you for your efforts.
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.