Author: A. Steen
Date: 01:11:00 11/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 03:47:39, Aaron Gordon wrote: [Basically, that something that potentially happens 1000s of times, even 10^5 times, in a single move search at 40/2 time controls, and which might hold up or make discardable 20 million clock cycles of processing time each and every one of those 1000s of times per move, is still to be viewed as an "instant" process] Thanks for the insight. >>>Anyone of average intellect can discern what he was talking about and would >>>know not to take it literally. I wasn't taking it literally. Quantum mechanics and continuum calculus makes 0-duration events, even transitions, impossible. I was taking it in context, by measuring it against the thing you say I must trade in for it. Seems logical to me. >>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? LOL! At this stage, I think it is fair to say that I must agree with the thrust of your general approach, viz., the intellectual divide that separates us is a indeed a gulf, a chasm, and one that I **** not breach and you *** not breach. :) (asterisks have their usual meaning). A few more little drops from me below, and then it is adieu. >>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. "are" != "often can be" 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. Well, you are measuring the wrong thing, or guessing, or have your testing too complex. Real engineers keep it simple. This is certainly no harder than something potentially as trivial as CPU benchmarking, so I don't understand why you don't see the overhead. Or do you just judge efficiency by the noise the drive makes or how much the LED flickers? >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. Since I am not trolling, I must ask you how much you enjoy beating your grandma. As to your tolerance of time-wasting, you seem to relish it IMO, trying to obfuscate an obviously lost case, that even if there is an overall plus, EGTB access today (to be meaningful competitively, using some/many of the 6-men bases too) is expensive in terms of access time. HDD capacities have grown enormously but the first-seek time hasn't improved at all in proportion. 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.