Author: Ernst A. Heinz
Date: 12:12:52 12/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Peter, >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? Chrilly Donninger's RAM-based endgame databases are based on a technique first used in our chess program "DarkThought" during the 15th WMCC in 1997. I named them "knowledgeable endgame databases" because they employ domain-specific a-priori knowledge to reduce the amount of information stored per position to just a _single_ bit in many cases. This is only half the space that would be required for vanilla W/D/L = win/draw/loss databases using 2 bits for the three W/D/L values per position. The RAM-Based knowledgeable endgame databses of "DarkThought" consume less than 16MB of RAM for the full set of all 3- and 4-piece endgames. AFAIK, Chrilly has added some more databases while compressing them on top of the knowledgeable encoding scheme with a standard compression technique. According to my own experiences with "DarkThought", RAM-based knowledgeable endgame databases are certainly worthwhile every bit of RAM they consume. Hence, I always load them if possible. Please point your browser to the WWW pages of "DarkThought" at http://supertech.lcs.mit.edu/~heinz/dt/ to find out more about our RAM-based knowledgeable endgame databases. =Ernst=
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.