Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 11:06:14 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 12:33:56, Steve Coladonato wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 11:40:00, Michel Langeveld wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 10:40:30, Steve Coladonato wrote: >> >>>Are tablebases basically a set of finite positions that have pointers to >>>subsequent positions (most probably positions leading to a win)? And if so, is >>>the basic algorithm to go to the next position that in turn will have a pointer >>>to a "won" position? I am also concluding that once a program starts to use a >>>tablebase, it no longer does any "real" processing, just pointer evaluation. Is >>>this basically it or am I way off the mark here? >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >>>Steve >> >>TB's are files which has no pointer at all. It contains just all positions of a >>certain endgame with saved the number of moves it takes to reach mate. Because >>we haven't exceed mate in 255 with TB's we can put save 1 byte to an epdrecord. >> >>Since all the positions are saved sequential it's possible to only save 1 byte >>because the physic position of the record tells which position it is. >> >>The number of positions is reduced because we can convert a Black-to-move >>positions, to a white-to-move position. We can flip position between y-axe, >>x-axe or even x/y-axe. >> >>Michel Langeveld > >Thanks Michel. > >It isn't what I was thinking at all. Is it correct to say that once the TB >starts to be used that the progam doesn't do any real processing anymore, just a >scan of the positions? > >Steve No, that is not correct. When the program begins to hit the tablebases, it works as hard as before using an alpha-beta search (I am thinking on leaf probers). It might work less when the root score is solved as a win. José.
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.