Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:24:58 04/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 17, 1999 at 12:17:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On April 17, 1999 at 11:53:10, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >> Tablebases stored on hard disk are hard to manage, because they are slow to >>probe, even at standard time controls. Something even slower would be >>practically unusable even at standard time controls. I do not see a big >>difference between standard and blitz in this case, as at standard time controls >>tablebase probes will be hitting before, because the program has more time to >>move and a variation can lead to a tablebase position from a position with a >>relitively high amount of pieces on the board. > >Right now the cost of a table lookup is one disk access, approximately. Perhaps >you can save some due to locality of access, but in a file that's a serious >fraction of a gigabyte in size, that's part of a set of related files that total >several gigabytes, you are going to end up hitting the disk a lot. > Right. >It would be a significant advancement if these files were turned into a smaller >aggregate of code and data, such they they could all fit into a reasonable >amount of RAM. The code could even be fairly complex, anything has to be better >than a disk access. > Right again. >That is what is driving this. > I am not sure (altough I agree that is a good drive). KarinsDad was proposing something even slower than a disk access, that was the reason of my post. >bruce José.
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.