Author: chandler yergin
Date: 01:00:22 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 13:52:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 11:15:22, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 08:21:58, Norm Pollock wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 07:43:57, Norm Pollock wrote: >>> >>>Then there is other matter of wear and tear on >>>>the disk drives. >>> >>>Let me clarify this. 5 man egtb starts disk accessing with as many as 14 pieces >>>still on the board in a blitz game. >>> >>>When there are only 5 pieces or less, then there is hardly any disk access and >>>egtbs are clearly better than searching. >>> >>>But for 6-14 pieces on the board, disk accessing is taking away time >>>(substantial time in blitz) from searching (and wearing out your disk drive). I >>>think egtbs are likely a disadvantage to a strong program when there are 6-14 >>>pieces on the board, but are an advantage with 5 (or less) pieces on the board. >> >>Nobody force programs to access the disk when there are 6-14 pieces >>I expect programmers who are intelligent enough to make their program probe the >>tablebases to be also intelligent enough to not probe the tablebases if it is a >>disadvantage. >> >>I got permission to use the nalimov tablebases as long as movei is not >>commercial and my first implementation is probably going to be using it only >>when there are 5 or less pieces in the board. > >I think it wise to test at least the pv also, when the pv has 5 men or less in >it. Even if it is 100 plies long, that is only 100 probes and completely >insignificant for time. Yeah Dan, Lets see ya get to 100 Plys!
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.