Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:21:53 01/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2002 at 08:37:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >this is dead wrong, because then we can search that entire >search space without nullmove and with nullmove we do it in >a few seconds then, yet we do not search it within a few >seconds. > >secondly mirroring reduces position by factor n. > >Say n = 2 for pawns ==> 2^250 / 2 = 2^249 > >The whole problem is that you guys still haven't figured out highschool math! I talked to Les on the phone to see where he was coming from. Allow me to clarify. You cannot store all of the chess positions in 2^81 bits. Here is what you can do: 1. Take a billion positions and reduce them to 1 billion/40 (or some such factor). 2. Store them to disk. 3. Look them up. That's it. Not so bad, really. For positions which don't have a lot of pieces and for which sliding pieces make the key move, you may be able to store the entire set to disk in just a few bits per position, because of the fact that you only store a small subset to disk. You can't encode "all of chess" in this way and get the same savings.
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.