Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 10:05:18 03/03/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2006 at 12:20:43, Tony Werten wrote: >On March 03, 2006 at 09:46:12, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>What's the problem with a shared history table? > >Problem is a big word, it probably isn't that bad. > >Suppose thread 1 want to add 1 to the counter: >1) load memory into register >2) add 1 to register >3) move register to memory > >If the thread is interrupted between 1 and 3 and thread 2 adds to the same >entry, you have lost 1 add. Yes, this can happen, of course, but it doesn't bother me at all. Who cares if the history counters are only approximately correct? The deviations will be really tiny, and I would be very suprised if they have any measurable impact on move ordering at all. I really don't understand why anybody would want to copy the entire history table to each thread at all split points, instead of just sharing it. Tord
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.