Author: Angrim
Date: 15:49:56 10/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 15:55:48, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >There appears to be confusion between the two uses of egtb tables. One is in the >search where you need to know the value of the position (mate in 37, draw, >etc.), though for practical play win, draw, or loss is enough. The other is at >the root where you need to know which move to play. > >In the search, Best-move tables would be completely impractical, but a related >idea might work very well: >Have an evaluator that predicts the score, win, draw, or loss, and a table that >indicates correct, or has the real score. With a good evaluator, this table >should compress *extremely* well. For many unbalanced tablebases, e.g. KQQQk, >you would not even need the table (i.e. compress it to zero bytes). I like this one. If you don't mind not having the distance info you can get some really impressive compression with this. Should make it practical to store all of the 4 piece tables in ram, and if you have a lot of ram(1-2gig) you might fit all the 5 piece tables in. You would still need some other type of table to use at the root since W/L/D tables don't tell you how to finish the win once you have it, but ... >At the root, Best-move tables could work well. Agreed. Angrim
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.