Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 16:58:04 02/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2005 at 15:17:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 02, 2005 at 13:22:54, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On February 02, 2005 at 11:46:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 02, 2005 at 01:33:29, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On February 01, 2005 at 21:55:56, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 01, 2005 at 21:39:40, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Is there any chance of some 6-man tables becoming available before CCT? My wish >>>>>>list is actually pretty small: >>>>>> >>>>>>KRPKRP <--- Only white available, and totals 3.41gb of space. >>>>>>KRPPKR >>>>>>KQPKQP >>>>>>KQPPKQ >>>>>>KRKPPP <--- That one would be absolutely HUGE!! >>>> >>>>Not really. The 3 pawns give a big reduction. The total number of entries for >>>>each color is below 2GB. (1806*62*((48!/(45!*3!)))) >>>> >>>>The biggest problem might be that because of the amount of (under)promotions you >>>>will need all other KRKZZZ tables to generate this one. >>>> >>>>Tony >>> >>>The other issue is compression. KRKPPP probably has +lots+ of wins, which means >>>few 0 scores and resulting poor compression. >> >>Isn't this a good argument for W/L/D tables? What I would _really_ like to have >>is a full set of 6-man W/L/D tables, plus DTM tables for the complicated endings >>that I just posted. Once the full 6-man set is generated, it should be pretty >>simple to just run through and convert each to a W/L/D. Of course, Eugene seems >>pretty busy these days :) >> >>anthony > > >Make 'em. :) > >If you think about it, it is not hard. 6 loops, one for each piece's possible >squares. Probe the table, if the score is > 0 it is a win, = 0 is a draw, <0 is >a loss. Better be sure the loops are in the right order or you could have some nasty cache thrashing. I would guess it could take ~1000 times longer if the loops are in the worst possible order. >The resulting files will _still_ be big. The 8 bit tables will shrink >by about a factor of 5. The 16 bit tables will shrink by a factor of 10. You >still end up with a _bunch_ of gigabytes. Say 100gb per TB. I suspect (without having tried it) that the files will compress better, particularly those that are mostly wins for one side.
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.