Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 09:25:06 07/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2003 at 16:09:50, Robert Allgeuer wrote: [...] >As a conclusion it appears that tablebases and bitbases are no real advantage >(which was also the result of previous experiments), although it is still not >clear - at least for me - why this is so. Any ideas? With respect to table bases the obvious drawback is the large cost of disk IO, which costs nodes or even depth. While a EGTB hit saves searching a subtree, an equivalent result may often be achieved by a shallow search, which is significantly faster than the probing. For bitbases (which are much smaller) this effect should be much smaller, but then, the benefits of bitbases are also smaller. Obviously, probing EGTBs is a tradeoff. Your results show, that the current method for probing results in no measurable net gain. Others have made similar observations (me included). I think, that a clever asynchroneous IO schema will be necessary to overcome this. Kind of SMP with more threads than CPUs... (wild guessing) >Robert Cheers, Heiner
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.