Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:51:00 01/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2001 at 13:41:57, guy haworth wrote: >Rob > >My thoughts were that: > > a) 2-bit tables are 1/4 the size before compression > > b) compression is far more effective (as noted by the other reply) > especially as 'broken' positions need not be marked as such > they could 'falsely' be given the previous unbroken's value > this improves the compression a bit more > > c) you only go to the DTZ/DTR (DTC/DTM) tables on value-preserving moves > and maybe you get an 'optimal' in half the time or less > >You only have to have the '2-bit' and '8-bit' tables in play (in or near RAM) >for the relevant (sub-)endgame, taking into account P-positions, B-colour and >K-positions. > >Have I missed anything? > >G You may have overlooked how I probe. IE I often see TB hits with a total of 16 pieces (or more) on the board at the root position. How can I tell which TBs I will need until I probe them? And sucking in 2-bit tablebases is going to cost a bunch when we are talking about 2 gigabytes. The idea is fine for 4-piece files. But all the 5's are done and we are now working on 6's. Forget it for 6's, completely.
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.