Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 00:47:39 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 03:28:37, A. Steen wrote: >On November 21, 2005 at 03:13:52, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On November 21, 2005 at 02:51:03, A. Steen wrote: >> >>>"Instantly" is interesting. >>> >>>S(KRK, Nalimov EMD) =! 7Kb, which resides in RAM cache easily. But we are >>>talking about the general question of EGTB use, where tablebase sizes make RAM >>>cache-residence a dream many years from reality (and even then, pre-load time >>>will be an issue). So for real life use, HDD latency and seek times are an >>>issue, and periods of even 10ms have to be considered. >>> >>>For a 4GHz CPU, even 5ms = 20,000,000 CPU cycles. With hyperthreading and >>>family, that is an awful lot of processing time for one tablebase lookup. >>> >>>So, "instantly" is usually wrong. >> >>Anyone of average intellect can discern what he was talking about and would know >>not to take it literally. > >Thanks for the fresh insult. It wasn't an insult, mearly an observation. However, your comment is interesting. I was under the impression that you could be intelligent enough, yet were trolling. Are you suggesting that your lack of intellect caused you to post that instead, and it wasn't an intentional troll? >Note what is being considered is either: >* using (some) EGTBs; and/or >* using a chess engine evaluation function. > >There is no plausible third option of just picking the move up out of a hat or >out of the end of a randomising move generator. which would be time-cheap but >useless. > >So the times taken to find the move with the help of the EGTB, or using only the >evaluation algorithm, are what needs to be compared. > >I showed that for just one single "perfect" EGTB look-up, one might need to >pipeline 20 million clock cycles worth of evaluation processing. > >Conclusion: EGTB lookups are very expensive. You get perfection, but it costs. >Like most decisions in life, it is not always clear-cut. Like I said before, remove the BS and you're left with what Enrico originally said. EGTBs are beneficial. I have zero performance problems using the 3, 4, and 5 piece EGTBs on an old 7200rpm, 40gb, 2mb cache Maxtor drive and 256mb of EGTB cache. >>This is a blatant troll, no doubts about that. > > >I suggest you make your profile private, as you may not wish to associate >yourself with these academic pronouncements when you have thought the matter >through. What does my profile have to do with anything? Are you looking for something else to argue/flame/troll about? You'll find I'm not very tolerant of time wasting trollers, so any attempts at button-pushing will be unsuccessful. >I stand by everything I have written. > > >The S/N here is poor indeed, and perchance the confederacy is forming. > >Best, > >A.S.
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.