Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:16:09 11/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2001 at 08:31:09, William Penn wrote: >I suspect this has been discussed before but I didn't pay attention, so please >pardon my redundancy. If you could just point me in the right direction, much >appreciated... > >Can't we make some assumptions without compromising very much practical playing >strength and significantly reduce the size of the endgame tablebases? For >example it seems a waste to generate separate positions for "white to move" and >"black to move". It is also a waste of space to remember the exact number of moves to mate and knowing the number of moves divided by 2 is enough and if you know it you can calculate the exact number of moves to mate. Surely there is a reasonable simplification in that regard >based on symmetry. Symmetry is used in building the tablebases Promotion of a pawn to less than a Queen is rare and could be >disregarded. This is going to save time in generating the tablebases with pawns but it is not going to chnage much the space that is needed for the 3-4-5 piece tablebases. Perhaps castling can be disregarded because it seldom happens in >the endgame. It is already disregarded. I suppose we must keep en passant(?). I'm guessing that the size >could be reduced to perhaps only 1GB for all of the 3-4-5 piece positions vs the >current 7GB. Part of the 7GB is for generating unimportant tablebases of a king and three pieces against a king when there is no position with king and 3 pieces against king when programs cannot win. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.