Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:37:23 11/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 11, 2001 at 21:42:56, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On November 10, 2001 at 15:02:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 10, 2001 at 11:24:52, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 2001 at 10:17:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>You can do like the Nimzo guys did. Just set up 4 loops (for 4 piece >>>>endings) and use each subscript to stick a piece on that square. Probe the >>>>EGTB and if you get a score >0 store "mate", =0, store "draw" and <0 store >>>>"mated". Only probe these beyond the first N plies of the search so that >>>>you get real mate scores early, just win/lose/draw deep in the search. If >>>>you do this for _all_ 4 piece files, you are going to end up with 40-50 megs >>>>of stuff. To shrink this they didn't do all tables... >>> >>> >>>Thanks: worth a try. 40-50MB RAM is certainly tolerable now. >>> >>>Frank >> >>Actually it may be bigger. 200mb is the size of the compressed tables. The > >The size of the "four" directory on your FTP site is only about 30MB. If you >store only W/L/D instead of distance to mate, you must be able to save at least >half that much space. They are compressed, remember. And most are full of nothing but zeros (draws) which compress to almost nothing. But for win/lose/draw it is not clear that you would want to have them in a compressed form as the decompression would be expensive, suddenly, since there would be no I/O if they are locked into memory. If they are uncompressed, they are over 200 megs (from memory, I have not done this in a long while). My first guess was that you end up with 50+ megs, if not more, assuming you don't compress the 3/4 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.