Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:46:28 02/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2005 at 10:32:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On February 02, 2005 at 21:33:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 02, 2005 at 17:18:07, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>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. 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. >>> >>>That's already a far different statement than a while ago. >> >>Not from me it isn't. I don't use W/L/D tables. I don't intend to use them. >>But if someone wants to, the above savings are certainly possible. >> >>> >>>Entire uncompressed size of diep's 6 men is 1 TB. >> >>No comment. Never released or seen by another human being. Eugene's are used >>by everybody else, including yourself apparently since you mentioned having all > >This is another claim from someone from the 80s. > >What you want me to ship. My source code or so? > >>of the on some "supercomputer". Do you use your own or not? If not, why not? > >The supercomputer affair was in 2002/2003. It's 2005 now in case you forgot. > >I use the nalimov's to test against fritz basically. > >Verification of the diep indexing scheme has been done already for all 6 men. >Did it with a double test. Wonder whether Nalimov did that with his. > >Took 6 months for diep a position2index + index2position, old one didn't have en >passant. > >What i'm verifying now is egtb generator format for 6 and a few 7 men. > >Most likely i'll be generating more 7 men than Nalimov will. I guess Nalimov >within a few years will either quit or will have to rewrite his generator + >format. > >Those mothers are big. > >Just about to order a RAID5 card as a matter of fact. > >>> >>>Now you are saying: "say a 100gb" ==> 100 gigabit = 14GB. >>> >>>Vincent >> >>I didn't say any such thing. I said for 16 bit files (and not all the 6 piece >>files in Eugene's format require 16 bits) a 10:1 reduction would be possible. >>For the 8 bit tables, more like 5:1. I'm not considering compression and doubt >>they will compress much better... >> >>So I guess I totally miss the point of your post... > >You should go in politics Bob, only there i heard bigger nonsense.
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.