Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:22:20 04/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2004 at 18:17:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 02, 2004 at 17:56:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 02, 2004 at 16:22:19, Jonas Bylund wrote: >> >>>Thank you very much for your detailed answers! >>> >>>When you say Diep already runs in windows mode, does that mean that it runs DOS >>>or "real" windows mode? (sorry about not being clear on that in my original >>>post) >>> >>>10GB for all the 3+4+5+6 tb's would be a HUGE success as would 20GB of course! >> >>It is also "vaporware". 3-4-5-6 tables will _not_ fit into 10 gigabytes. > >Yes but it is possible that tables that are enough to play 3-4-5-6 perfectly may >fit 10 gigabytes. > >Suppose that you have tables that have only 1/32 of the information in the >original 6-piece tables(it has information about exact distance to mate only if >the index of the position is divisible by 32). Do the math. Current tables will likely go well over 1.5 terabytes. Shrink to 10 gigabytes means well over 2 orders of magnitude reduction. If the 6's fit in 1.5 which is not yet a given. > >You can still use them in 1/32 of the positions in case that the index of the >position is in the table. > >In case that the index of the position is not divisible by 32 you can search >forward and in order to check if the index of the position is divisble by 32 you >do not need to look at the table. > >Now the question is if programs who use the smaller tables can practically play >6-piece positions perfectly or cannot do it. > >Uri You reduce a single position to 1.6 bits from 8-16 bits. A reduction of 10 at best. You are now down to 150 gigabytes if you are lucky. Reduce it further and there is information loss. I can't deal with a group of positions that might be mate in anything from 1 to 32.
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.