Author: Joachim Rang
Date: 05:29:51 08/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2005 at 08:06:00, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 30, 2005 at 05:11:07, Joachim Rang wrote: > >> >>>Or you can store 2 tables -- one with Win/No Win, and other with Lost/No Lost. >>>Presumable they will compress even better, and in lot of cases during the search >>>you will probe only one of them, because that is all you need to know. >>> >> >>Just a crazy idea from a non-techie: Couldn't you store only win/draw in a table >>and simply skip all lost positions and tell the chess program that in case there >>is no entry for a position it is lost? >> >>regards Joachim > >Maybe better experts than me will answer but I will share my thoughts about it. > >How do you do it? > >basically every position is translated to a number. > >The way that chess programs find if position is a draw or win or a loss is that >they translate position to a number and the number tell them where to look in a >big array to tell them the result when 1 is win and 0 is not win. > >How do you expect a program to find that there is no entry for a position? >If you do it by another number then you need to use more than 1 bit. > Which array is used for EGTBs? A ordinary arrays which is indexed by a single integer or a Associative array like for Hashtables? I think EGTBs are stored like hashtables and a lookup is done via a (zobrist)-key. I though for hashtables sometimes you don't get a hashtable hit if the position was not searched yet. I think one could handle missing TBs-Hits accordingly. regards Joachim
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.