Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:43:10 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 13:38:30, John Merlino wrote: >On April 09, 2004 at 13:33:36, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On April 09, 2004 at 12:56:58, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>On April 09, 2004 at 02:24:36, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On April 09, 2004 at 00:35:43, Les Fernandez wrote: >>>> >>>>>Is anyone aware of any study that has been done regarding the "time" thats >>>>>needed to generate endgame table bases? Eugene would probably be the best one >>>>>to consult with since he appears to be the "authority on this subject" but I am >>>>>interested to hear from anyone. Certainly it is important that the times are >>>>>all based on same hardware. I am interested in studying the times it takes to >>>>>do each tablebase. By each tablebase I mean each individual one. >>>> >>>>According to my understanding the ChessMaster FEG tablebase files are faster to >>>>generate and require less memory. >>>> >>>>I do not know if they can produce the statistics that you are interested in, >>>>however. >>> >>>Yes, they can. The FEG utility can perform a summary of all files generated on >>>your computer, and this includes the time it took to generate them. >> >>Is the format public? > >Nope. > >>Can other engines use the tables? > >Yes, if they had the format. :-) >But for now, Johan is keeping it to himself. Well then, I think we have the answer to the question: "WHy aren't people using the FEG format instead of Nalimov." ... Because Nalimov format is the only sensible choice. It makes the previous and tedious debate seem extremely silly to me now.
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.