Author: John Merlino
Date: 12:31:41 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 15:09:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. No question. But that statement can quickly turn into a "Please make this format obtainable!" thread, which I'm sure Johan would at the very least pay attention to. jm
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.