Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 10:33:35 12/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2000 at 10:18:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Thanks, I was wondering about their size too. But what do you think Bob of the trade-off between using RAM for the main hash tables and tablebase caching? PK
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.