Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 16:44:41 06/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2002 at 20:16:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 06, 2002 at 19:24:54, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>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... > > >2^160 represents something just below the total number of unique chess >positions. > >Of course, that has _nothing_ to do with solving the game, because path >information will be critical with the 50 move rule. > >In that context, 2^160 words will barely be a start. It might well bu >2^160^160 for all I know at that kind of problem... If you could construct all tablebases up to 32 piece ( a VERY big if), chess would be solved and it would fit in the 2^160 or so bits the tables would take. It is *quicker* to create tablebases that obey the 50 move rule than tablebases that do not.
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.