Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 14:05:16 02/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2000 at 16:48:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 28, 2000 at 15:51:58, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>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] > > >How would you force mate? IE you get to choose between mate in N scores, where >for one move n=131/4 and in the other case it is 130/4. If you take the 131/4, >you will again have to choose between 131/4 and 130/4 the next time. And you >might run afoul of the 50-move rule as a result. I'll repeat myself: 'Progress at root can then be determined by shallow search till depth 8...' or see Eugenes post below :)
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.