Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:45:35 04/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2001 at 13:24:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >On April 02, 2001 at 22:39:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 02, 2001 at 16:40:38, Heiner Marxen wrote: >>> >>>I'm not so sure that this is always correct. >>>When we throw enough cache memory at the EGTBs, such that cache misses >>>become rare enough, EGTB probes will be fast on average. At some point >>>they can be fast enough that it is worth it. >> >>I don't think you can throw enough memory at EGTB Cache to stop file I/O. >>3-4-5 piece files would need over 7 gigs of memory. If you throw in the >>already done 6's, you would need about 60 gigs... > >It seems unlikely that any board position would require caching them all. >I suspect that a MRU cache of 4 gigs would add significantly to performance. >Something around 4 times the size of the largest EGTB file. (Just a guess). I >have not looked at the code for EGTB cacheing, but I have a nice cache algorithm >that could be employed that might give a speedup if the method used is not too >sophisticated. > >Memory is cheap: >http://www.pcprogress.com/cart/memory.asp?OrderID=10102447231577700376510 > >Look at what you spend on CPU's and memory is one of the biggest bargains >around. > >[snip] However, if you have 4 GIGS i would prefer to use that as transpositiontable instead!
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.