Author: blass uri
Date: 08:21:11 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2000 at 09:22:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 13, 2000 at 00:43:02, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On April 12, 2000 at 23:18:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 12, 2000 at 22:27:22, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On April 11, 2000 at 16:44:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 11, 2000 at 12:18:46, Jason Williamson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 11, 2000 at 09:31:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 11, 2000 at 03:07:48, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 10, 2000 at 17:22:09, Arndra L. Sharp wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 10, 2000 at 15:52:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 10, 2000 at 11:20:51, Arndra L. Sharp wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>First of all let me state that I am not a programmer, just someone who enjoys >>>>>>>>>>>computer chess immensely. I have seen a lot of posts that put down the Endgame >>>>>>>>>>>Turbo disks because they do not contain all of the TBs, in particular those TBs >>>>>>>>>>>after the pawn queens. I think it a good idea to reduce the hard drive space >>>>>>>>>>>required for TBs by pruning those TBs that any good chess program can figure out >>>>>>>>>>>if its brain was not disabled. It seems the real problem is that those programs >>>>>>>>>>>that use TBs turn off the permanent brain once the program is in a TB position >>>>>>>>>>>and then the program gets confused if after a pawn queens and the now simple win >>>>>>>>>>>(for good chess programs) is not in the TB folder. This is something that the >>>>>>>>>>>programmers probably did not anticipate originally everyone has seen games where >>>>>>>>>>>this impacts the result. Now that this has been identified, why can't the >>>>>>>>>>>programmers tell their programs to follow the TB tree to pawn promotion and >>>>>>>>>>>reset the permanent brain at that point. Many people have reported that the >>>>>>>>>>>programs that blunder with missing 5 man TBs play the same ending fine with 3 >>>>>>>>>>>and 4 man TBs. It just seems that the programs don't know how to think again >>>>>>>>>>>after they start down a tree and the tree ends before checkmate. A bug fix by >>>>>>>>>>>the programmers would be more preferable than taking up another 5 gigs of hard >>>>>>>>>>>drive space. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Arndra >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Crafty does this correctly. But with the price of disk drives, holding all the >>>>>>>>>>3-4-5 piece files is now trivial... 40 gigs for 250 bucks is typical now. You >>>>>>>>>>only need 8 gigs for _all_ the 3-4-5 piece files (compressed). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Does anyone sell all the TBs on CDs? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Try http://mitglied.tripod.de/ChessBits/index.html! They sell 10 CDs or one >>>>>>>>harddisk for 3-5 piece. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Unfortunately it isn't all the 3-4-5 piece files. They add up to almost 8 >>>>>>>gigs compressed, which won't come close to fitting on 10 CDs... >>>>>> >>>>>>All the TB - the 6 piece ones from your site come to 7.05 gigs (7,580,368,539 >>>>>>bytes). This is all the 5 piece ones correct? Or perhaps I missed a few... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>the 7.5 gigs is right... >>>>> >>>>>which won't fit on 10 cd rom disks... >>>> >>>>But it will fit on 3 or 4 DVD disks. Maybe Chessbase will use DVD if they print >>>>another run of these in the future. All of the 3-4-5 piece databases would fit >>>>on a single DVD. >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>> >>>I don't follow. I wasn't aware that a single DVD could hold almost 8 gigs, >>>which is the total size of the 3-4-5 piece files (compressed). >> >>My mistake. I thought the 7.5 gigs included the six-piecers that had been >>constructed. I obviously didn't read all of the quoted text carefully! :( >> >>DVDs hold 2.something gigs each, I think. So I guess it would take 3 or 4 DVD >>disks just for the 3-4-5-piece databases. That seems reasonably doable. >> >>Dave > > >The problem is that Eugene slipped in another 2 gigs of 5 piece files on my >ftp site. We now have _all_ 5 piece files, including the 4 vs 1 configurations. >Almost 8 gigs just for 5's now. I had not even noticed these until I copied >the things over to one of the 8 quad xeons I have been playing with, and I >wondered "why is this now 7.5 gigs when it was under 6?" I found out. :) 4 vs 1 are the less important tablebases because I believe that programs can always find the right moves by search without tablebases in 4 vs 1 endgames. It can save some space to use only win/draw tablebases without distance to mate in 4 vs 1 endgames. Uri
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.