Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 09:39:26 07/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2003 at 12:25:06, Heiner Marxen wrote: >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. The bitbases Yace uses are accessed from RAM (about 14 Mb for 3/4-men). There should be no slow down effect at all. Actually accessing the bitbases is significantly faster than a position evaluation. Heiner (or anybody else), if you are interested in some discussion about this, have also a look at the Winboard forum, where some other good points have been raised. http://f11.parsimony.net/forum16635/messages/51417.htm and followups. Regards, Dieter
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.