Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:34:44 12/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 2000 at 16:52:52, Alexander Kure wrote: >On December 22, 2000 at 15:21:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I wanted to say 5 times. But somehow I convinced myself that it was actually >>3/256, since we normally store 256 unique states per entry, and only need >>3 states for w/l/d. >> >>Your number means we would need about 1.5 gigs of memory to hold all the >>3-4-5 piece w/d/l files. Not going to happen on my machines. :) Not worth >>it. >> >>The error I made was a simple one. Probably due to the late hour and advanced >>age. :) >> >>Thanks for watching carefully. Need to keep me straight when I wander. :) > >Hi Bob, > >You do not need to hold *all* of the 5 pieces endgames in RAM, only the most >interesting. >E.G. in London i used 2 pawns vs rook and rook + pawn vs. rook. >This summed up to an additional 200 MB. Not a big deal. > >Greetings >Alex Right. But a good while back I ran a bunch of tests, keeping up with which files I wanted to probe in the search. I didn't find any particular "winners". IE if I was in a KRPP vs KRP, then KRPvsKR was a winner unless the pawn is close to promoting. But for normal positions, I found the TB hits scattered "all over" the landscape. I think that if I had this on my to-do list, I would probably demand-load the files as needed. Or I might simply keep a log of what I probe during a search, then load all those w/l/d databases before the next search... and if I complete a search without hitting any I have already loaded, I would probably dump them... However, with good cache strategy, storing the TB hits in hash, and being careful when/where I probe, I really don't plan on doing w/l/d right now...
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.