Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 16:24:54 06/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 19:18:16, Roy Eassa wrote: >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.) Upon further thought, I understand why you raised 2 to the power of the number of bits. But does the 160 bits take into account the additional data required in a tablebase? If not, you need several more bits, which should increase the final number by orders of magnitude. Plus, I don't think anybody will ever turn even every tenth atom in the Earth into storage for tablebases...
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.