Author: James T. Walker
Date: 19:23:51 09/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 1999 at 22:00:37, Joshua Lee wrote: >On September 21, 1999 at 20:49:47, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>On September 21, 1999 at 20:38:12, odell hall wrote: >> >>>Hi CCC >>> >>> In an attempt to explain the discrepancy of moves between my hiarcs7.32 and >>>others in this group I looked at my "engine parameters" within the fritz5.32 >>>interface this is what I had >>> >>>Playing style=Normal >>>contempt value 15 >>>hash =38912 >>>selectivity=5 >>>Postional learning=on >>>use of tablebases=on >>> >>> >>>Is this how it should look? Is my selectivity correct? Otherwise I am simply at >>>a loss to explain the move discrepancy >> >>Except for hash, it is identical to my parameters. >> >>Ralf >Yep that is it but i would reccomend 35840kb for Hash tables, awhile back i >posted my results for Hiarcs mark and that setting was best on the long test at >35840:) i have a K6-2 300 with 64Mb (maybe someone out there can tell me if >more memory 128MB+ (282MB tops is what hiarcs can use) will get better result on >the test. While the HiarcsMark test is affected by the amount of hash, it will give misleading results about what is best for playing. According to a post here some time back you should give Hiarcs all the memory available without swapping. I have run test of over 1500 games and I am sure that even at G/1 min Hiarcs does better with more memory. Jim Walker
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.