Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:52:39 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 18:26:56, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On January 13, 2005 at 13:32:42, Dann Corbit wrote: > >Dann, I don't want to speculate too much, neither do I have much to contradict. >But ... > >>And there is certainly no reason to search/solve positions more than once. > >When you have the memory to remember all those previous searches. Therefore my >estimation of the atoms on the earth. I agree with you, that we don't have to >remember previous searches that end in KQQQQK. Seems still difficult enough for >the rest of my live. Perhaps we remember this little conversation in 20 years. If I have a hash table of every position possible, I will always find the exact position in my database. So at most, I will need 10^48 even if 162 bits are fully needed and I cannot eliminate a single position from my table. That is atoms in the earth, not the universe. I suggest that almost all of them are useless and will never be visited. But prophecy is not my strong point (I thought Microsoft Stock was a sure failure on the initial offering and so I did not buy any.)
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.