Author: KarinsDad
Date: 20:03:05 05/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 1999 at 17:09:41, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 27, 1999 at 16:56:22, KarinsDad wrote: >[snip] >>2) Due to the "tricks" being used to decrease the number of bits, the actual >>number of legal positions may be greater than 2^x where x = minimum number of >>bits it can be fit into. For example, if I had a 4x4 chess board and only one >>piece to place on it, it is obvious that there would be 16 possibilities or 4 >>bits required to represent it normally (assuming the piece had to be on the >>board). If I could then use some compression trick to drop it down to 3 bits, it >>would not mean that the number of possibilities dropped from 16 to 8, it would >>just mean that I was clever. >If you have some mapping from a large set of bits to a smaller one, then it does >completely number the possibilities or you have an error. I am assuming that a >binary string of n bits can be translated to a unique board position. If this >is true, and all board positions can be generated using *whatever* function you >wish to apply to the bit string, then the count of bits will absolutely be a way >to determine the limit of legal board positions. Yeah, no kidding. Some days I am so brain dead (just like my chess play). > >I won't be hasty to dismiss his methodology until I have seen it in total. >The work of J. Niervegelt does, indeed, indicate that there may be only about >100 bits of information in a chess position. However, I don't think any 18 >queen positions were tried, so I'll withhold judgement on that one. At any >rate, a correct and compact coding will have important theoretical value. Ok, I will wait, but I'll bet a quarter that there are legal positions forgotten. KarinsDad :)
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.