Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:02:23 06/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2002 at 19:44:41, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >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. I don't know about the "quicker" part. But the 50-move rule is a serious problem. It would seem that we need to soon convert to a combination of DTM/DTC so that we can work around the 50 move rule with some sort of reasonable algorithm that will work in a running chess engine. But in any case, current DTM or DTC by themselves have difficulties that are serious problems..
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.