Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: not using nullmove?

Author: martin fierz

Date: 05:21:41 02/18/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 18, 2004 at 05:37:41, Tord Romstad wrote:

>On February 17, 2004 at 20:55:13, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>Here's a dumb idea:
>>
>>Write a program to scan a Nalimov database, but throw away everything except
>>won/lost/drawn/broken (needs 2 bits per reflected board position to store the
>>outcome state).
>>
>>Then write a table.
>
>There are two problems with following this approach:
>
>1. If you just use a table, you risk to miss the opportunity to discover
>   principles which can be useful even in more complicated endgames.

i concur. i think the most important aspect of thinking up rules for simple
endgames is a possible generalization for slightly more complex endings. already
all 5-men TBs are several GB IIRC, and 6-men TBs are much larger. most KRP-KR
endings were once KRPP-KRP endings before the last pair of pawns was exchanged -
so if you have sensible rules for KRPP-KRP, you should do much better than a
program which only uses TBs.

cheers
  martin

>2. The memory requirements are big.  A few MBs of RAM may not seem like a
>   lot on modern computers, but it is not very aesthetically pleasing to
>   use so much memory in order to do something as simple as evaluating
>   KRKP endgames.  Besides, some of us (or at least one of us) want to
>   port our engines to Palm OS and similar platforms, where memory is
>   limited.
>
>Tord



This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.