Author: Urban Koistinen
Date: 21:13:22 04/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2001 at 16:19:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 08, 2001 at 13:06:09, Urban Koistinen wrote: >First let's be clear on your algoritm that it's a brilliant algorithm >to save CPU time. CPU time gets reduced 64 times when one would use >the same indexing scheme. i/o time is important too and that is where the indexing scheme helps. >But the only interesting thing in chess when talking about EGTBs >are 6 men WITH pawns. Endgames with pawns are much simpler to optimize as you can do without most mirroring. Pawn moves need only be examined when computing d, t0 and t1. Even if you do a separate pass for each pawn move it would not be slow. >One sees now and then in computerchess a 6 men pawnless endgame, but that >only happens when both programs play incredible stupid somewhere, so there >was already a lot to improve in the engines then. > >In a good game one should never need pawnless 6 men. However the number >of 6 men with a pawn which would influence the outcome of the game >when one would have win/draw/loss information about it, that is >real huge. > >With 6 men with pawns the computers would really get smart in far endgame! > >All my calculations about 6 men i always take into account 6 men WITH pawns. >That one can generate KRBKBN real fast is out of the question already >for years for me. Even at a 486 with quite some RAM >you can do that easily if you get rid of illegal positions a bit! To compute an endgame with 6 men where some are pawns you need to compute the endgames that it depends on first. Bishops allow special partitioning tricks that I don't bother with. (I think my algorithm is fast enough anyway.) Perhaps bishop tricks would be worthwhile for doing endgames that otherwise would be out of reach, but disk space is getting cheaper. Urban Koistinen
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.