Shredder settings?

[ChessAddict]

Can any of you guys using a shredder program give me advice on how to adjust the settings? Maybe there is an article somewhere on how to adjust the settings. I have shredder 8. Just trying to tune it. Thanks.

[Graham Banks]

Can any of you guys using a shredder program give me advice on how to adjust the settings? Maybe there is an article somewhere on how to adjust the settings. I have shredder 8. Just trying to tune it. Thanks.

Once the engine is loaded, right click on the engine in the engine pane underneath the board.
You should then be able to adjust the settings and save as a new engine under a different name.

Regards, Graham.

[ChessAddict]

What are the hashtables for? Also what about the parameters with "100" numbers in them? These are the ones i need more knowledge about. Thanks.

[Las]

you can try to download Shredder manual, but which is for S9 UCI. I guess most of the settings are discribed there.

if you'll give it a try: http://download.shredderchess.com/pc/sc ... Manual.pdf

regards

Torsten

[ChessAddict]

thanks for the info. Hope it's the information i'm looking for!

[ChessAddict]

I didn't really find any threads that really addressed my issue. Can anyone just give me a basic idea how to use the hashtables? Thanks.

[Vempele]

http://www.chessbase.com/support/support.asp?pid=199
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3895

How did you miss that first link? It was Google's first result.

[Mike S.]

The only thing the user has to care for, is the SIZE of the hash tables, in MB. If you find an "allround" size for your system, depending on the total RAM size you have available, you only need to adjust it once and that's it.

Make sure to not set a too a big size. A typical recommendation is: Half of your free(!) RAM. With XP or Vista, I think a few hundred MB should remain free for the system etc. Also, keep in mind that if you run an engine match, BOTH engines will allocate that amount of RAM, each.

On a computer with 1 GB, 256 MB would be a recommedable size. I think the gain from larger hash is very small. The total impact on strength is sometimes overestimated, for large sizes. CPU is the main thing.

[Mike S.]

NO! The first link to an article form 2002 provides WRONG information with a formula which does not make sense. Actually, that formula was specifically for Fritz 5, only. It does not take the node rate into account, which is obviously a main factor of a fill rate per second, of a hash table not only the CPU clock rate (MHz). Also, it is basically wrong that bigger size could be "harmful" to an engine (as long as the system doesn't swap), although there may be some speed related effects with extremely large sizes.

Programmers who read this can acknowledge this and explain it better.

ChessBase should delete that article. St.Lopez has explained later in another article, that the formula is useless and simply the biggest safe size is best.

(Your second link is not about hash tables.)

[Vempele]

(Your second link is not about hash tables.)

Thanks for pointing this out! I meant to link to this:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1343

Which pretty much says what you said (followed by suggesting a DIY approach for those who refuse to believe), but doesn't explain the concept of hashtables (hence the first link).

Programmers who read this can acknowledge this and explain it better.

More hash leads to fewer collisions, leading to fewer entries getting overwritten. Random access time is not dependent on size (well, not dependent enough to matter in this case), unless it doesn't fit in ram, causing swapping (making it 10000 times slower or something like that).

Doubling the size is estimated to be worth about 5 Elo.