Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 11:35:56 05/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 1999 at 14:17:14, KarinsDad wrote: >On May 21, 1999 at 12:58:35, Dann Corbit wrote: > >[snip] >> >>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. > >I can understand saving each piece type (including state information) in less >than 4 bits per piece, but how do you compress the location of the pieces? > >For example, even a starting position of chess where you know exactly where the >pieces are requires 32 pieces * ~3 bits per piece (color is assumed based on >side of the board) = slightly less than 96 bits. > >Please forward me on a copy of this when you get it if it is worthwhile. > >KarinsDad :) Didn't somebody already describe the method here? It boiled down to a decision tree. The idea is to ask questions about the position, and the future questions you ask will depend upon the answers you already have. Kind of like a big decision tree. Dave
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.