Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: OOPS! Shortening Huffman coding + OT

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:07:55 11/03/99

Go up one level in this thread


On November 03, 1999 at 08:44:12, Guido wrote:

>In the previous message I calculated the number of different positions with 32
>regular pieces (without captures, promotions, castling, ep) obtaining the value:
>
>Total dispositions:   (48!/(32!*8!))^2 / 64  = 2.14 10^40  ===> 134 bits
>
>I think that the number is wrong and that the correct answer is 1/4 of this
>value, so 132 bits are sufficient to represent all the positions. A new help for
>the goal of a maximum of 160 bits to represent every chess legal position!
>
>The reason is that each bishop can occupy only 32 squares, and therefore we have
>to exclude as illegal all the positions where both white bishops or both black
>bishops occupy squares of the same colour. The complete symmetry of the problem
>should guarantee the correctness of my statement.
You can have many bishops on the board.  I believe that the maximum would be 10
bishops, with up to 9 of a single color.

>The problem become very complicated with promotions and I don't try here to
>solve! Perhaps it could be convenient in the calculations to consider bishops on
>white squares and bishops on black squares as two different pieces, with the
>possibilities for each bishop of occupying only 32 squares. But a pawn promoted
>can always choose only between 4 pieces depending on the colour of the square on
>which it is promoted.
Any scheme to number all positions must take into account any legal board
position.  Otherwise it cannot be used and its value is limited

>In another successive message KarinsDad said:
>"
>The only illegal positions that can occur in the variable length code method
>(that I perceive off the top of my head and assuming the decoder can check for
>illegality of too many pieces and too many pieces of a given type) are: side not
>to move king in check; side to move king in check by more than 2 pieces or in
>check by more than 1 knight; pawn misplacement based on number of promotions
>(i.e. with no captures and no promotions, all pawns must be on their starting
>column); bishop misplacement based on number of promotions; piece location where
>it could not be (say for example the king bishop realised when none of the king
>pawns have moved).
>"
>
>I would specify that IMO are also illegal all the positions where 2 identical
>pieces give check, not necessarily 2 knights, specifying that in this case:
>
>- Queen and bishop are considered identical if queen acts as a bishop (on
>diagonals)
>- Queen and rook are considered identical if queen acts as a rook (on rows or
>columns)
>
>There is one only exception to the second statement: it is legal a double check
>of queens, rooks or queen-rook in the only situation in which the capture move
>of a pawn determines its promotion (queen or rook). The pawn, doing so, could
>discover the enemy king to an attack along the column where the pawn was before
>the move.
>
>It was interesting to calculate how many positions for a double check and other
>reasons are illegal in the very famous KDDKDD ending.
>
>Regards
>Guido



This page took 0.01 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.