Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 23:27:48 04/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2004 at 16:57:12, John Merlino wrote: >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. I see that we have the answer. FEG is a black box. No touchie - no lookie. So (for all practical purposes) Nalimov's format is totally superior because FEG is totally unusable. Not for ChessMaster, of course. But for any other purpose not connected to UBISoft. Sort of like Ferret. We know it's out there. But we can't play with it w/o special permission.
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.