Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 16:18:16 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 18:02:43, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >On June 06, 2002 at 16:30:19, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On June 06, 2002 at 16:25:01, Michael Vox wrote: >> >>>On June 06, 2002 at 10:10:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>When Nalimov 32 piece tbs come out someday, it will be over. This will >>>eventually happen with stronger hardware. At least every worthy line will be >>>saved to dbases. It will no longer be Crafty vs Junior, it will be Crafty dbase >>>vs Junior dbase. >>> >>>No point in discussing computer chess anymore once this level of technology and >>>dbases is hit. >> >> >>I hope you're kidding. Even if every atom in the galaxy were used to store 1 >>bit of data, that still wouldn't be enough storage for 32-man TBs. (And 100 >>billion years wouldn't be enough time to compute them, even on a multi-terahertz >>computer.) > >You are off by a bit. All positions can be stored in ~160 bits, which means that >2^160 or 10^48 bits are enough for all TBs. There are more atoms than that in >the earth. As to calculation time, we should have fast enough computers in about >300 years, if Moore's law holds up. ;) First off, to store tablebases requires more data than just each position itself. Second, why did you raise 2 to the power of the number of bits? How many positions are possible in chess? It's a number with scores of digits, and *each* of these entries would require your 160 bits plus more for the other required fields (next move, etc.). And finally, I doubt Moore's Law will hold up for another 300 years! (If nothing else, it won't take nearly that long before the laws of physics prevent further speedups, at the rate of increase we've been experiencing.)
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.