Author: Dan Andersson
Date: 17:54:25 01/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
>That would be 4 bits. Does that mean that the shrinkage is 2^4th = 16 fold? A >simple way to accomplish that is to have 16 separate tables. Then you don't >need any bits for castling rights. The number of bits depend on how efficient the encoding is. Castling information is implicit in the majority of cases. i.e. the king is off the castling square. When calculating compression efficiency one takes into account the size of the program. And that includes data also. For example: You could have a compression that compresses Moby Dick to one bit. A one. And all other cases a zero followed by other any other text (or text compressed by a predetermined algorithm). But the size of that program would contain a representation of Moby Dick. Thus not gaining any real benefit from it because every other text will have an extra bit. So the gain of separate coding of special cases comes into play only when additional symmetries and recursive structures appear. I do however think the idea of goal oriented sparse tables are good. As the sliding piece idea from Lez. It is similar but simpler and more effective than my idea of a sparse table containing enough position for search to find a match. Even though they may need more than the optimal number of moves to win. One complication remains, it is neccessary to ensure that the 50-move rule is not breached. MvH Dan Andersson
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.