Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:26:33 04/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2001 at 09:57:35, Tony Werten wrote: >On April 08, 2001 at 08:41:19, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 08, 2001 at 06:47:56, Aaron Tay wrote: >> >>>On April 08, 2001 at 06:14:44, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On April 07, 2001 at 11:18:34, Urban Koistinen wrote: >>>> >>>>>I have written down a algorithm for computing endgame tablebases that should be >>>>>about 10 times quicker than the Nalimov algorithm and requires much less ram. >>>>>It is similar to the Arlazarov&Futer algorithm of 1979 but is more general as it >>>>>does not require a pawn. >>>>>It might be too technical for most here, >>>> >>>> Thank you. Too technical algorithms are not for a crowded-of-programmers forum like this. We wouldn't understand anything. >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>>Hey , be nice. He's new here. >>> >>>He is just feeling a little fustrated after posting at r.g.c.c and getting only >>>one response. Knowing the high level of general technicial expertise here, I >>>suggested to him that he should post here. >>> >>>So what do the experts think? Is the algorithim as good as he claims? Layman >>>like me want to know! >> >>1)I tried to explain the paper in more words in order to understand it and the >>first part that I did not understand was the sentence: >>"t4 depends on t3 and d" >>It seems to me that t4 is dependent also on t1. >> >>Here is an example of position in t4 > >Why is this an example of t4 ? Might be t100, white has just captured a queen. >Or t99, black has taken the other white queen. > >Counting the number of moves for the 50 move rule has nothing to do with >distance to mate. ( Or I really don't get it ) 1)I understood that it is the distance to conversion or mate(in the case of my diagram it is the distance to mate). Every position must be in exactly one set that is not dependent in the history of the game. If you include the history of the game then generating 6 piece tablebases seems to be impossible task. I admit the explanation is not clear but I tried to understand some logical explanation and I guess that the author meant: g50=0 when there are no half pawn left to the conversion and g50=100 when there are 100 quiet moves until the conversion. 2)When I think about it again I understand that my explanation is not right. t1 can include also positions when black is to move and here is an example: [D]8/8/8/kQ6/8/8/7R/7K b - - 0 1 It means that t2 can include also positions when white is to move. 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.