Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: tablebase caching, timing, hardware rental?

Author: martin fierz

Date: 13:00:48 04/08/02

Go up one level in this thread


On April 08, 2002 at 11:51:03, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On April 07, 2002 at 13:43:12, martin fierz wrote:
>
>>first, thanks for the answers, bob!
>>
>>>You are using FIFO it seems.  LRU is better.  A double-link would be the easiest
>>>way to do a LRU.  When you use a block, move it to the front of the list.  When
>>>you replace a block, replace the one on the tail of the list.  LRU is
>>>significantly better than FIFO as a replacement policy.  It is used in every
>>>paging facility (virtual memory) that I know of...  Eugene uses it in the probe
>>>code used in crafty and other engines...
>>
>>"significantly better" is of course good - but do you have some numbers on this?
>>it adds complexity to the program, and if i could fit the whole db in memory
>>(see below), i would rather not do it.
>
>For the 3-4-5 piece files, you will need 7.5 gigs of RAM.  I doubt you will
>fit it all into memory.  :)

i'm talking checkers :-)
my 2-8 piece db is now 4.3GB (the chinook db is 5.5), and i hope to compress it
better still.

aloha
  martin

>
>I haven't tried FIFO for probing.  Eugene wrote it and used the LRU algorithm
>from the beginning.  However most any O/S book discusses FIFO vs LRU page
>replacement strategies and they _all_ point out that FIFO is terrible when
>compared to any sort of LRU-approximation...
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>3) hardware rental
>>>>the checkers tournament will take place in las vegas in early august. i have a
>>>>XP1600+ with 1GB ram here in honolulu, but getting that tower to vegas with a
>>>>monitor is a hassle. i searched for computer rentals on the net, but most have
>>>>rather outdated hardware. does anyone know if there is a possibility to rent a
>>>>really good system (e.g. a bit faster than mine, as much ram as possible)in las
>>>>vegas for a week?
>>>One option is to take your tower, and rent a monitor...
>>
>>that is an option, true. but i'm also hoping to remove the databases with white
>>to move, and, if the lookup needs a value for white to move, do a 1-ply search
>>to get that value. has anybody ever tried this in chess? that would take me
>>about half the db away, so if it's 2.5GB remaining size, that would fit into a
>>win2000 with a 3GB user partition... and having the whole db in memory would be
>>really nice :-) - which means i'd have to find a 4GB machine somewhere...
>>
>>aloha
>>  martin



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.