Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:20:12 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 15:31:41, John Merlino wrote: >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. A technical article would be even better. Hint, hint. Nudge, nudge. Know what I mean?
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.