I've downloaded the gaviota tablebases and stored them into a folder on my hard drive, organized into 3-, 4-, and 5-men subfolders. The actual path to these subfolders is C:\gtb\gtb.cp4 and I specified this path within Critter's parameters, in the Gaviota tb path field.
My problem is that I see no evidence that Critter is actually using the tb's. The PV info doesn't display anything about tb hits, as it does with engines that use Nalimov. I've tried to set the usage to 'everywhere' and also to 'root only', but I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Carl
Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:13 am
-
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:27 pm
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
Do not seperate nothing. Just put all files into same folder example: c:\gtbcarldaman wrote:I've downloaded the gaviota tablebases and stored them into a folder on my hard drive, organized into 3-, 4-, and 5-men subfolders. The actual path to these subfolders is C:\gtb\gtb.cp4 and I specified this path within Critter's parameters, in the Gaviota tb path field.
My problem is that I see no evidence that Critter is actually using the tb's. The PV info doesn't display anything about tb hits, as it does with engines that use Nalimov. I've tried to set the usage to 'everywhere' and also to 'root only', but I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Carl
Then configure critter to use that folder
regards
Ignacio
-
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:13 am
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
Thank you, that worked!IGarcia wrote:Do not seperate nothing. Just put all files into same folder example: c:\gtbcarldaman wrote:I've downloaded the gaviota tablebases and stored them into a folder on my hard drive, organized into 3-, 4-, and 5-men subfolders. The actual path to these subfolders is C:\gtb\gtb.cp4 and I specified this path within Critter's parameters, in the Gaviota tb path field.
My problem is that I see no evidence that Critter is actually using the tb's. The PV info doesn't display anything about tb hits, as it does with engines that use Nalimov. I've tried to set the usage to 'everywhere' and also to 'root only', but I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Carl
Then configure critter to use that folder
regards
Ignacio
-
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
Sometimes a backslash at the end will get the tbs to work:
c:\gtb\
c:\gtb\
-
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:19 pm
- Location: IASI - the historical capital of MOLDOVA
- Full name: SilvianR
Re:A hint
Just put Critter 1.6(a) folder in the same directory with Gaviota TBs folder .For example:carldaman wrote:I've downloaded the gaviota tablebases and stored them into a folder on my hard drive, organized into 3-, 4-, and 5-men subfolders. The actual path to these subfolders is C:\gtb\gtb.cp4 and I specified this path within Critter's parameters, in the Gaviota tb path field.
My problem is that I see no evidence that Critter is actually using the tb's. The PV info doesn't display anything about tb hits, as it does with engines that use Nalimov. I've tried to set the usage to 'everywhere' and also to 'root only', but I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Carl
-C:/gtb and C:/Critter 1.6a , or
-D:/gtb and D:/Critter 1.6a
This is enough. The engine is already configured to use Gaviota TBs if they are in the same directory !
Regards,
SilvianR
NR: for Gaviota TBs : just put all downloaded files in a single folder : "gtb". This is , again , enough !
-
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:25 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Stefan Pohl
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
stronlgy recommended is using flash memory for GTBs and NalimovTBs (much faster access than HDD). 16GB USB-Stick for both (3-5 pieces) is cheap (today)...
Stefan
Stefan
-
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:23 pm
- Location: CT,USA
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
my 5,400 RPM drive is pretty quick.pohl4711 wrote:stronlgy recommended is using flash memory for GTBs and NalimovTBs (much faster access than HDD). 16GB USB-Stick for both (3-5 pieces) is cheap (today)...
Stefan
En passant,
Lonnie
"Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself."
Harvey Fierstein
Lonnie
"Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself."
Harvey Fierstein
-
- Posts: 1056
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:15 pm
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
flash memory certainly lessens wear and tear on the HDD. But what about access time? Using flash memory requires USB (usb2 in most cases) access time as opposed to HDD access time.pohl4711 wrote:stronlgy recommended is using flash memory for GTBs and NalimovTBs (much faster access than HDD). 16GB USB-Stick for both (3-5 pieces) is cheap (today)...
Stefan
-
- Posts: 5563
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 pm
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
I would be surprised if HDD seek time beats USB2 access time. For tablebase access, seek time is what counts.Norm Pollock wrote:flash memory certainly lessens wear and tear on the HDD. But what about access time? Using flash memory requires USB (usb2 in most cases) access time as opposed to HDD access time.
Of course a real SSD would perform better than a USB stick.
-
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:25 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
- Full name: Stefan Pohl
Re: Question about Critter 1.6 & Gaviota gtb's
USB access is 20-100x faster than HDD-access. Because of that, all TBs are very, very slow on HDDs!syzygy wrote: I would be surprised if HDD seek time beats USB2 access time. For tablebase access, seek time is what counts.
Not sure about that. A SSD is flash-memory, too.syzygy wrote: Of course a real SSD would perform better than a USB stick.