Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 07:06:52 09/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 1999 at 22:57:34, Andrew Slough wrote: >On September 09, 1999 at 21:57:28, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>Would it be feasible to generate an EGTB in the following manner: Instead of >>storing DTM or DTC in the EGTB, how about storing "nth generated move progresses >>towards mate"? It would seem this would be more compact in some endings. An old >>idea? Yes? No? Maybe? Incorporating a little primitive AI to order the moves >>generated would make the the tables even more compact. > >Information on the number of moves until a mate is needed during search probes >(there may have been 10 reversible moves, so I would want to know if I could >mate in 40) and during tablebase generation for algorithm termination. I'm not >convinced it would be a more compressed representation either, but then again >I'm not convinced Eugene's representation is optimal either... Number of moves to mate can be determined if needed. If you know what the best move is in each position, the numbers nodes you need to generate is proportional to the depth. Not exponential. Slower than DTM, but on an as needed basis it would be OK. > >Move ordering is certainly the problem to make things compress well, but have >you ever watch a computer play KBBKN? I'm not sure that primitive AI would give >good results. By primitive AI I mean avoiding moves that hang a piece & moves avoiding the edge of the board by the defending K. In your example, one might also include avoiding a knight fork and keeping the N next to the K. Very primitive AI, but it would make a big difference. > >Andy
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.