Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: late move reductions (and another question)

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.