Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:18:02 11/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2001 at 09:16:09, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I mean no KXXX vs K position that is not drawn that programs cannot win(of course there are stalemate positions). 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.