Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:18:26 12/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2000 at 09:45:23, Peter Kasinski wrote: >These are meant to be permanently stored in RAM, and thus the significant RAM >requirement. At the same time Nimzo8 still uses Nalimov tablebases and assigns >RAM for that. > >1. Isn't there an overhead of trying to use both? >2. What is a reasonable strategy for allowing Nizmo8 to use one vs. the other? >I.e. should a nominal amount of RAM be assigned for caching Nalimov tablebases >and the rest (as much as possible) to Nimzo's own? >3. Finally, does it make sense to increase these allocations at the expense of >the main hash table size? > >If someone has info/interesting experiences with the above, please do share >:)Thanks! > >PK > >ps. Merry Christmas to all (who celebrate)! The Nimzo tablebases are win/lose/draw, which makes them much smaller than the normal distance-to-mate tablebases. They are used only in the search as they can't tell which move leads to the shortest mate. Once the root position is 5 pieces, normal tablebases have to be used to avoid repetitions, which is why both are needed.
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.