Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:09:29 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 13:52:16, John Merlino wrote: >On April 09, 2004 at 13:43:10, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > >I knew that.... ;-) > >Although I think the intended point of the debate was to determine which format >was "better", rather than which format should people be using. But, sadly, like >many CCC debates, I don't think anything remotely close to a consensus was >reached. > >Isn't computer chess fun??! No matter how you slice it: "We ought to be using this unobtainable format!" is silly.
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.