Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:41:09 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? Don't want you to ship a thing. We have something that works, something that everyone uses, what would be the point of something new? We did our fair share of debugging when Eugene was developing his code (Eugene myself and many others) so why would we want to jump in and do it again, for no significant gain? > >>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. It is less than 1.5 years ago, in case you can't subtract... > >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 is the point? Eugene did EP from the beginning, addressing a shortcoming of the original Edwards format. > >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. I would venture a guess that he finishes them before you do. > >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. You should go to elementary school and learn to read and quote properly, rather than making things up.
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.