Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 12:51:58 02/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2000 at 13:49:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 28, 2000 at 10:35:29, David Eppstein wrote: > >>On February 28, 2000 at 08:45:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>On February 28, 2000 at 03:00:24, Gregor Overney wrote: >>>>How large is KQQKQP? How about KPPKPP? >>> >>>First, you can forget kppkpp for a long while. The file will be huge and there >>>are a _bunch_ of other 6-piece files that have to be completed first. >> >>I would think that all of the KxxKyy should be about the same size as each >>other, and all of the KxxKyz should be about the same size as each other. > > >It depends. IE if the max mate is <= 127, then 1 byte per entry is enough. >If we get some that have a max mate in 400, they will take forever to compute, >and they will be bigger. And then there is compression. If a particular >ending is mostly drawn, the database compresses like crazy. If it is not >mostly drawn, it doesn't compress as well. How important is it to store exact mate in x and not, say, mate in x div 4, assuming whole database woul be flagged as 'div4'? Progress at root can then be determined by shallow search till depth 8... (or mate div 3 and search till d=6). Or am I missing something? -Andrew- [snip]
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.