Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:44:14 02/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2002 at 11:26:00, Joshua Lee wrote: >How do you determine the space necessary for each additional piece? If we know >all 6 man will take over 1 TerraByte what about figuring out the 7's, 8's ....to >32 and up? I personally think the only way to fit it all in less space is to >make a new kind of Tablebase but since the compression is already good this >would be hard to do. It seems like there could be some more complex, advanced method of storing so many chess positions. Maybe have "base" positions and then store moves to get from position to position or something. Seems like there should be something to make it easier to store so much data. Even if it took a longer time to find the position in the database, I think it's worth it, because hardware will continue to get better, and currently we're moving basically "instantly" if we find it in the TB, so if you have to increase the search time to 10 seconds, or 30 seconds, or 60 seconds even...you'd have spent that time searching for an "estimate" of the best move, and this way you would use the same amount of time to get an exact best move. I think in analyzing this problem, we need to take the "hacker" attitude and make use of every spare bit and millisecond to achieve maximum efficiency. Currently we're not making use of the extra time we have on the clock. We could use better compression or a more compact method of storing positions that takes longer to search or decompress, because we have spare seconds that we're essentially "wasting". Just some thoughts, I'll throw around some numbers later today and see what I can come up with. I'm sure those who have been spearheading the TB movement would have better ideas than myself though. Russell
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.