Author: KarinsDad
Date: 23:57:06 05/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 1999 at 15:28:56, Dave Gomboc wrote: [snip] >before draw" rule... it took them about 61 moves. So anyway, yes, please allow >every legal position. Dave, You sound like one of the purists I mentioned before. Tell me it isn't so. :) In order to require all bits in the 25 bytes, the schema that Eugene and I discussed would require that all pawns are off of the board, that there is 12 promoted pieces on the board, that all of the original pieces are still on the board and that all pieces are on row 2 through 7. This means that there are 28 pieces with no pawn protection within the 48 squares of the middle of the board. It seems a little much, doesn't it. Instead, it would seem more reasonable to use a 22 byte or 23 byte representation knowing that super bizarre positions are not really feasible (possible by lunatics, but not feasible in normal chess play). In fact, I was thinking that you could use whichever representation seems best for the situation. For endgames where there are fewer pawns and pieces, you can be assured that 22 bytes will be sufficient (and the 50-move rule would be required). The same applies to openings (I think that the original position will require 14 bytes). The minimum number of ply to get beyond a 22 byte structure (and this is with really bizzare play) is 33. For example, e4 e5, d4 d5, Nf3 Nc6, Nc3 Nf6, Bb5 Bb4, Bf5 Bf4, Qd3 Qd6, Ke2 Ke7, Rad1 Rad8, Rd2 Rd7, h4 h5, Rh2 g5, hg Rh7, g6 b6, g7 a5, g8(Q) a4, Qg7. If you are creating an opening book, I doubt you would go to the trouble of entering in such garbage. From this example, you can realize how really bizarre the play must be. Would you really want such a thing in your database? > This is also why I would prefer to include the adjustment >for the 50-move rule. (100-ply rule! Keep that in mind!) It would be better >to have something that you can use for lots of stuff, not just a particular >application (opening book). Agreed. Hence, 22 bytes with 50-move rule, 21 bytes without. If someone is just using the schema for an opening book, it couldn't hurt for them to disable the 50-move rule (and that would be their choice). > Maybe a specialization here is worth a bit or two, >but I think that hardly justifies it overall because the lost information may be >of some slight important for some endings that are reached by opening theory. I doubt that dropping the 50-move rule out of an opening book would make much difference here. > >You might consider if it is worth supporting chess variants that do not >introduce extra pieces as well. !? Heck, I cannot even seem to get a consensus on the schema for normal chess. > >BTW, if you keep a notepad and pencil/pen by your bed, then you can scribble >down ideas even when you are on the verge of falling asleep. :-) What and wake KarinsMom with a nightlight? Not in this lifetime! I enjoy my life as it is, thank you (a loving wife and a daughter who turns off my computer in the middle of CCC postings). > >Dave KarinsDad :) PS. The bizarre position you mentioned would fit into 18 bytes (and down to 15 bytes if all of the castling possibilities were still there).
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.