Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 06:46:12 03/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2006 at 02:48:04, Tony Werten wrote: >On March 02, 2006 at 16:35:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I'll give it a whirl. Less data to copy on parallel splits since each thread >>needs its own history stuff... > >Does it ? > >From a clock cycle performance point of view I would agree, locking is to >expensive. From a search performance pov, I would rather use a "global" table. I don't understand either of you. I use a single shared history table, without locking. I haven't seen this cause any problems, and I don't see why it should. What's the problem with a shared history table? Tord
This page took 0.01 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.