Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:27:41 12/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2005 at 17:47:00, Tony Nichols wrote: >On December 02, 2005 at 17:21:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It is time to stop this now. The above is utter nonsense. We don't "search" >>hash tables. Larger hash tables do not take longer to search, because we just >>don't search them. We randomly probe into them and either hit or miss, so the >>size has absolutely no effect other than larger sizes hold more information >>without requiring that older data be overwritten sooner. >> >>You are quoting nonsense... > > >Hello, > > Is it safe to assume that you can't have too much hash? I mean, as long as you >have the ram. >Regards >Tony pretty much. Beyond some point additional hash will not help. But to see how it helps, set it to something like 384K (yes 384 k bytes) and run a position for say 10 minutes. Record the highest depth reached and the time to reach that depth. Double the hash and re-run. Keep doing this until it doesn't get any faster. You just reached the max needed for the 10 minute search time (10 minutes was just a number, pick anything you want). You will see significant speed improvements at first, but they begin to flatten out and eventually doubling the hash doesn't change a thing any further. If a program clears hash between moves (most do not) then this can be a bigger issue with large hashes since they do take time to clear should that be needed...
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.