Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 04:51:58 11/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1999 at 22:06:03, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On November 15, 1999 at 14:48:04, Ratko V Tomic wrote: > >>> Other models are possible, but in any case I doubt very much that you >>> could compress any given position into 64 bits. >> >>You can encode _any_ 2^64-1=1.84..*10^19 positions in 64 bits, and the code >>11...1 (the 64 binary 1s) can be reserved as a prefix to all the remaining >>positions. With the right "model" one can even make an arithmetic coder produce >>this encoding. Hence, you could have for example all chess positions that were >>ever published be in these 2^64-1 "high probability" positions, each taking >>exactly 64 bits, and have room to spare for some centuries of play to come. Or, >>the same way, you could encode, say a million positions of your choice in 20 >>bits each, etc. > >I'd like to see such a model :-) >If the model basically consists of a gigantic lookup table then it kind of >defeats the purpose of compression don't you think? > >Of course none of what you say refutes what I said, because I said 'any given >position' (which means any possible position) couldn't be compressed into 64 >bits. KQK can be compressed into less than 64 bits.
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.