Author: Ed Trice
Date: 11:33:23 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks Guy. I thought that there would be some waste in the chess endgames, and my math skills from solving checkers endgames with only legal positions where there are no jumps present for either the side to move or the side not to move will allow me to remove positions where there are checks and the side in check is not moving. > >Maybe Eugene's e-address is to be found via one of his contributions to CCC. > > >The paper was I suspect a Nalimov/H/Heinz collaboration based on a presentation >by Ernst Heinz at ACG-9 (2000), and the result of a subsequent reworking by >Eugene and myself. > >Certainly, EN's index to an EGT is a set of sub-indexes, one for each legal >Kk-position. There are 462 anticipating no Ps and 1806 anticipating Ps. > >Eugene then prevents stm pieces giving an unblockable check to the sntm-King, >though other checks will subsequently render the position 'broken' by virtue of >being 'clearly illegal'. Thus, the subranges-size is KK-position-specific. > >There is no general algorithm for avoiding all positions with sntm in check, and >therefore there is major 'waste' in the index in some endgames: this seems to >increase with number of men on the board, so any impovement on this would be >welcome. > >A downside of EN's index-function is that an inverse-index function, as would be >needed for the Wu/Beal fully-retro EGT-generation algorithm, involves >integer-division rather than 'division' by 64. This has performance >implications for a method combining the Wu/Beal algorithm and Nalimov indexing. > >g
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.