Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:40:06 02/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2002 at 22:49:22, Russell Reagan wrote: >On February 09, 2002 at 22:35:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Several issues: >> >>1. 6 piece files are going to require some large mate-in-N scores. IE they >>will need 16 bits at least, which doubles the size compared to a current 5 >>piece file where all scores are 8 bits max. > >Why would you need to use a full 16-bits? And why would you add on "at least" to >that? How many mates are going to take more moves than 65,536 moves without >reaching a 50-move rule point or 3-fold repitition? The answer is none. Maybe >you could explain why my reasoning doesn't work. > Simply because the _current_ way of building them uses distance to mate. And distance to mate is distance to mate, period... and it will definitely push beyond 8 bits, and using 9 bits is _not_ convenient for reasonable speed and accessing. >>2. another piece multiplies the size by roughly 60. > >No greater than 58, and less than that in practical play :P 58 is "roughly" 60... > >>3. Unknown compression ability. We already have some 6 piece files that >>are 3+ gigabytes. These are pawnless which have max symmetry. Pawns will >>increase that significantly.
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.