Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:14:06 03/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 1999 at 15:38:29, Mark Young wrote: >On March 21, 1999 at 15:15:34, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>On March 21, 1999 at 14:03:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 21, 1999 at 13:15:23, Paulo Soares wrote: >>> >>>> In 1989 the HD approximately had a capacity of storage of 30 Mb. >>>>Today they have approximately 8Gyb, or either, approximately 250x more >>>>capacity of storage of data. In year 2010: >>>> 8*250=2Terabytes >>>>This not influence in Ed' tournamant(computerxcomputer) but >>>>what the influence in computer x humans games in the openings, >>>>endgames(tablebases) and midlegames? >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Paulo Soares,from Brazil. >>> >>> >>>things haven't improved _that_ much. In 1985 we bought a machine with a >>>couple of 1 gig disks. On the PC platform (IDE) I bought a Toshiba Notebook >>>in 1986 with a 40 mb disk, and had SCSI been available back then (on a PC) >>>they could have had 1 gig disks... >>> >>>Today's disks are at 50 gigs max. with 20-30 gigs being pretty common (I just >>>bought a 17 gig disk for 300 bucks at Comp USA (IDE)). So in 10 years we have >>>increased by maybe a factor of 50, which is more realistic... >> >> >>Robert, >> Then we will have HDs with approach capacity >>of 50x20=1Terabyte. You know much about the endgames >>tablebases, what you find that would happen? 7 pieces, >>9 pieces, in the endgames tablebases? >> >>Best regards, >>Paulo Soares > >I'm not an EGTB expert, but I see how much space it takes jumping from just 4 to >5 pieces tables. That make me think even with a Terabyte drive, 7 and for sure 9 >pieces tables will still be out of reach. Bob, with todays fastest super >computer. How long would to take to make a 9 pieces EGTB? Any Idea. yes, and I don't want to think about it. :) IE figure a week to do krpkr + promotions. the 6 piece files are 64 times bigger, but _far_ bigger in terms of time, because we have to iterate for each mate-in-N. And no one knows what kind of mate-in-N thing we might see with 6 or 7 piece files. On a good supercomputer, Lewis Stiller did a few 6 piece endings, but they were pawnless I think, which reduces the mate-in-N distance to something close to manageable. But a real 6 piece file with one (or more) pawns might take a year at present, and need a _huge_ amount of real memory to prevent that from paging into 10 years. We're a ways away...
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.