Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:47:03 02/03/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 03, 2005 at 10:20:21, 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 >>of the on some "supercomputer". Do you use your own or not? If not, why not? > >"eugenes are used by everybody" > >Comeon, your own program isn't even using them all at ICC. No, but it is using 650+ gigabytes. I don't have enough disk space on my dual to hold everything, so I choose to not include things like KQQKNN and things I believe I can win easily. I suppose I have no idea what you are talking about, or is this another failure to read. "everybody uses them" does _not_ mean "everybody uses all of them." Otherwise I would not have the code in Crafty to correctly handle the case of KRPKR but no KQRKR.. > >I saw a game shredder-crafty a day or 2 ago where crafty obviously didn't use >KBPPKP :) > >Besides with 10000 filehandles eating 2 GB ram or what is it? >Windows would crash... ...and linux default has just 1024 file handles. I have run crafty with _every_ endgame table available. It uses a bunch of memory, and with the slow speed of IDE raid on the ftp server, it takes a while to start up. But crafty runs perfectly and I have posted several times here when someone asks me to run some test using the 6 piece files. So I have no idea what you are talking about. The decompression indices do not take a gigabyte of ram. > >I know NO ONE who uses all nalimov's. Nor do you know anyone that said someone did. That's your lack of reading comprehension, not anything else. who exactly said someone uses "all" of them? > >Too big. Too much RAM, too slow to start your executable. I use over 500 gigs of them in _every_ game I play on ICC. > >In fact i don't even know anyone who has them all besides you. But well, you >don't even know how to back them up seemingly :) > >>> >>>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...
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.