Author: John Merlino
Date: 13:57:12 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 16:20:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >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? I think Johan will (possibly) take it from here. 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.