Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:21:54 04/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2004 at 13:52:02, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On April 02, 2004 at 02:13:53, Johan de Koning wrote: > >>On April 01, 2004 at 22:30:27, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >> >>>I see. So in FEG your have krpkr wtm, krpkr btm, krkrp wtm, and krkrp btm. Than >>>yes, you can figure value without the search, at a cost of (probable) extra TB >>>probe. Extra probe is unavoidable when the score is a draw. >> >>As Uri pointed out, one can easily avoid these extra probes inside >>an alpha-beta search. >> >>But as Theron pointed out some years ago, one should avoid *any* >>probe inside a search. >> >>>So your are paying that price, and slower access due to 4x larger block size, to >>>achieve ~30% smaller TBs. Reasonable tradeoff, but I would not call it "better" >>>:-) >> >>Decompression time is tiny compared to random disk access, and it is >>getting tinyer all the time. Hence when we're talking about 20% smaller >>(rather then 30% !) it's not a trade-off but simply a small advantage. >> >>When it comes to "better", there is the simple fact that FEG generates >>the data [BLEEP]ingly fast. On any machine. Without the need to update >>whenever some Pawn is added to whatever side. >> >>Please accept that fact and don't play stupid (or should I say don't >>play MicroSoft?). Though my social intelligence is close to retarded, >>I can't help sensing friction eversince we met (Maastricht 2002). >>I'm trying to ignore it, and letting it be your problem. But as you >>can see, sometimes I fail to ignore it. Let's just say Nalimov TBs >>are cool and FEG is cool, OK? >> >>>BTW you can achieve better compression in .emd files by replacing all "broken" >>>scores by the most common non-broken score in the TB. I always was curious how >>>much it will save, but never made the experiment... >> >>Do the experiment and be surpised. Surprised by the fact it doesn't >>save much. Surprised by the fact that, given a suitable symbol size, >>statistical compression works much better than intuition. Well, we >>knew that already. But still it is scary. :-) >> >>... Johan > >For those of us that don't want to spend 1 year writing good interior node >recognizers, the Nalimov TBs & free code are great :) > >anthony You could download crafty source code. And toy with that. Saves you another few years of programming.
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.