Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 01:44:12 04/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
Certainly, it should be possible to 'compact' an endgame's EGT information if higher-level rules could be found. These could preface the classic data-level EGT, providing sufficient information (whatever that means) without recourse to the EGT itself. In some situations, maybe the following is possible: a) if your position is one of these, here is the value/depth b1) otherwise, if conditions C11, ... C1,n1 apply, use Rule 1 b2) ... An example in this vein is for the DTZ50 EGTs. Marc Bourzutschky recently observed that, if there are no 50-move affected subgames, we don't need a DTZ50 EGT separate from the DTZ EGT. We just improve the DTZ50 probe-code intelligence to understand that DTZ > 50 ==> draw. This saves quite a bit, even though we plan to use an 'EdZ50Z' EGT in association with a DTZ EGT, rather than a DTZ EGT and a DTZ50 EGT [because it's only necessary to encode the difference between DTZ50 and DTZ.] I have more than once thought that straight bit-level values ought to be useful somewhere. For example, after you know you have a win, you only need 0/1 for 'draw/win'. Last thought is on compression. Kadatch's scheme is good but maybe there are more effective, more data-sensitive compression schemes. I gather Eugene's index-regime uses a lot of RAM. A more 'runtime' approach to the maintenance of relevant indexes would I think save lots of RAM here. g
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.