Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:58:35 05/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 1999 at 12:49:59, KarinsDad wrote: [snip] >Dann, > >Where did you come up with this 100 bit possibility? > >It seems extremely unlikely that this is true for 2 reasons. One, is that the >10^30 board positions is many many magnitudes lower than even the most >aggressive minimum number of positions estimate that I have ever read. > >Secondly, after spending many hours on attempting to decrease the minimum even >to 160 bits, I cannot even fathom a paradigm shift (such as a compression scheme >after getting to the 170+ bit range) that would enable someone to decrease the >documented minimum (of approximately 173 bits) by over 40%. This seems absurd to >me. > >Is this just a computer chess urban myth? From fewbits.txt: "APPROACH #5: J. Nievergelt sent me this astonishing claim: >It should be possible in under 100 bits. If interested, read: >J Nievergelt: Information content of chess positions, ACM SIGART Newsletter >62, 13-14, April 1977. >reprinted in: >Information content of chess positions: Implications for game-specific >knowledge of chess players, 283-289 in Machine Intelligence 12, (eds. J. E. >Hayes, D. Michie, E. Tyugu) , Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991. I have not had a chance to check the reference, but I think 100 bits is incredibly few. In effect, it means specifying the state of each square in 1.5 bits, or the state of each piece in 3 or 4 bits." J. Nievergelt has promised to send me a postscript document when he gets back into country. I am awaiting that document with baited breath.
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.