Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:16:43 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 20:47:06, Mark Longridge wrote: >I'm wondering what the current practical limit of tb's. > >Have we reached that limit now with 6 piece tbs? > >And why is one side often smaller than the other? Can we use just one >side, and if so, why even bother with the other? > >And how about making "limited tb's" which only calculate from some positions, >the positions most common in actual games. It seems to me you would get >a lot of mileage out of these limited tbs, plus you could always add more >starting positions later on. Each new level takes a lot more space. Eugene could probably give you a pretty good estimate how big the full 6 piece set will be. Some are particularly uninteresting. (e.g. KQQQQK does not hold a lot of drama). How big they can get depends on how cheaply the data can be stored and how fast it can be accessed. If you have a thousand petabytes of data and can access it in one millionth of a second, that would be great. But if it takes ten hours to find the answer, that's bad. So the technology must be: 1. Big enough 2. Fast enough 3. Cheap enough. Generally, all three get better exponentially. So the answer to your question (in a nutshell) is "nobody knows." On the other hand, we can say that only 6 piece files and smaller are really practical now. And you will need a lot of disk for the 6 piece files.
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.