Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Fun, but is it worth it...

Author: Andrew Dados

Date: 10:35:43 05/15/99

Go up one level in this thread



On May 15, 1999 at 13:23:33, KarinsDad wrote:

>On May 15, 1999 at 11:36:18, Andrew Dados wrote:
>
>
>>
>>     Ok.. let's summarize.. Your format ends up with 22 bytes and does not
>>support all legal positions.. Now let's check way easier schema:
>>64 bits locations                          = 8 bytes
>>32x4 bits piece+color flag        =16 bytes
>>50 move + ep+ castling rights+ side to move = 2 bytes
>>total gets to 26 but *any* 32 piece position is supported and  way easier/faster
>> to code..
>>As usual - trade off....
>>
>> -regards -
>>  Andrew
>
>You forgot move by repetition, 2 more bits. So, a total of 27 bytes for your
>schema.
>
>Our schema is harder/slower to code. You are absolutely correct. However, the
>decompression will not be THAT much slower than the schema you mentioned, so
>once it is coded and debugged, the main difference is the smaller size.
>
>The original post asked for the smallest representation since for the reasons in
>which you would wish to use this (such as an opening book), you want tight
>compression, not ease of accessing. The hard disk access is WAY slower than the
>decompression in memory if you are accessing a lot of hard disk simultaneously.
>
>Our schema can support all legal positions in 25 bytes.
>
>Our schema can support all legal positions that would every show up in a real
>game in 22 bytes (and if you were concerned, you could increase it to 23 bytes
>and never have to worry about it).
>
>Our schema can support an opening book where you do not need the 50 move rule in
>21 bytes.
>
>I doubt our schema is the best, but it comes closer to the original post of the
>tightest compression possible than the simple schema you mentioned by several
>bytes. Also, from what I can tell, this problem has been solved before by others
>to the level at which we did it (i.e. we just reinvented the wheel the exact
>same way, so we cannot take credit for it).
>
>KarinsDad :)

ok.. so 25 bytes... If I now define 2 unused pieces (coded in 3 bits) as
'eppawn' and 'castle rook', and also use 'eppawn' somewhere for side to move
(impossible) to flag repetition I also end up in 25 bytes fixed size.. means in
all hash applications, where all it counts is maximum size (cause of fixed
record size) we end up even :). While coding such a schema versus yours is *way*
less pain... always lazy I was....

-Andrew-



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.