Home 
Search 
Today's Posts 
#1




endgame tablebases  future?
[  rec.games.chess.computer ]
Jud McCranie wrote: If the 6piece endings can be done, what is the largest set that can reasonably be completed? Depends how long Moore's law holds, really. If CPUs keep doubling in speed every eighteen months and storage (both RAM and disc) keep up their similar performance (ISTR they've been doubling in capacity every year for a while, though I don't recall the exact details) then larger and larger tablebases will become feasible. If my understanding of tablebases is correct, adding an extra man should require about sixty times more storage[1], assuming it doesn't affect compression. That means that storing a new set of tablebases becomes feasible about once every six years at current rates.[2] I'm not at all sure about how soon it will be feasible to compute the tablebases. Dave. [1] The nman tablebase has to store the move for 64 x 63 x ... x (65n) positions, which is the number of possible arrangements of those pieces. You can divide that by four because of Black/White and kingside/queenside symmetry. Since n is small, 65n is about sixty. [2] Because log_2 60 is about 6 doubling periods.  David Richerby Evil Peanut (TM): it's like a roasted www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ nut but it's genuinely evil! 
#2




endgame tablebases  future?
Does that mean that the 32 man Nalimov tablebases will not be
developed soon and perhaps not this century, thereby Chess cannot be solved just yet? Lance Smith David Richerby wrote in message ... [  rec.games.chess.computer ] Jud McCranie wrote: If the 6piece endings can be done, what is the largest set that can reasonably be completed? Depends how long Moore's law holds, really. If CPUs keep doubling in speed every eighteen months and storage (both RAM and disc) keep up their similar performance (ISTR they've been doubling in capacity every year for a while, though I don't recall the exact details) then larger and larger tablebases will become feasible. If my understanding of tablebases is correct, adding an extra man should require about sixty times more storage[1], assuming it doesn't affect compression. That means that storing a new set of tablebases becomes feasible about once every six years at current rates.[2] I'm not at all sure about how soon it will be feasible to compute the tablebases. Dave. [1] The nman tablebase has to store the move for 64 x 63 x ... x (65n) positions, which is the number of possible arrangements of those pieces. You can divide that by four because of Black/White and kingside/queenside symmetry. Since n is small, 65n is about sixty. [2] Because log_2 60 is about 6 doubling periods. 
#3




endgame tablebases  future?
On 04 Feb 2004 11:40:27 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote: If my understanding of tablebases is correct, adding an extra man should require about sixty times more storage[1], However, it seems to me that the amount of computation goes up faster than the storage needed because with more pieces, there are more ways to reach a given position (in addition to there being roughly a factor of 60 more positions). Actually, there may be a lot more than 60 times as many positions when adding one piece. Consider each of the 5piece positions. You can add a white queen in about 59 ways, a black queen in about 59 ways, etc. Many of these are going to be duplicates, and some are symmetrical, but I think there will be an increase of a lot more than a factor of 60.  Replace you know what by "j" to email. 
#4




endgame tablebases  future?
"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
news On 04 Feb 2004 11:40:27 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby wrote: If my understanding of tablebases is correct, adding an extra man should require about sixty times more storage[1], However, it seems to me that the amount of computation goes up faster than the storage needed because with more pieces, there are more ways to reach a given position (in addition to there being roughly a factor of 60 more positions). Actually, there may be a lot more than 60 times as many positions when adding one piece. Consider each of the 5piece positions. You can add a white queen in about 59 ways, a black queen in about 59 ways, etc. Many of these are going to be duplicates, and some are symmetrical, but I think there will be an increase of a lot more than a factor of 60. But obviously no more than 64 for every new piece.  Replace you know what by "j" to email. 
#5




endgame tablebases  future?
It will require 2 in power 169..172 bits to store. This is more
than atoms in Universe. "Liam Too" wrote in message om... Does that mean that the 32 man Nalimov tablebases will not be developed soon and perhaps not this century, thereby Chess cannot be solved just yet? 
#6




endgame tablebases  future?
David Richerby wrote:
[1] The nman tablebase has to store the move for 64 x 63 x ... x (65n) positions, which is the number of possible arrangements of those pieces. You can divide that by four because of Black/White and kingside/queenside symmetry. Since n is small, 65n is about sixty. For at *most* that number of positions. For pawnless endgames, it's at most 10 x 63 x ... etc. for symmetry reasons. If you also avoid including impossible positions (wK next to bK, for instance) in the enumeration scheme, there will be a corresponding reduction in size, though the mapping function will become more complex.  Anders Thulin http://www.algonet.se/~ath 
#7




endgame tablebases  future?
Thanks Alexander,
That's what I've been telling the Trollsby and he kept saying that chess has been solved and it's a draw. Without the 32 man Nalimov, we will never know for sure. Lance "Alexander Belov" wrote in message ... It will require 2 in power 169..172 bits to store. This is more than atoms in Universe. "Liam Too" wrote in message om... Does that mean that the 32 man Nalimov tablebases will not be developed soon and perhaps not this century, thereby Chess cannot be solved just yet? 
#8




endgame tablebases  future?
On 04 Feb 2004 11:40:27 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote: If my understanding of tablebases is correct, adding an extra man should require about sixty times more storage[1], However, it seems to me that the amount of computation goes up faster than the storage needed because with more pieces, there are more ways to reach a given position (in addition to there being roughly a factor of 60 more positions). Actually, there may be a lot more than 60 times as many positions when adding one piece. Consider each of the 5piece positions. You can add a white queen in about 59 ways, a black queen in about 59 ways, etc. Many of these are going to be duplicates, and some are symmetrical, but I think there will be an increase of a lot more than a factor of 60. I think the time might be more of a limiting factor than storage.  Replace you know what by "j" to email. 
#9




endgame tablebases  future?
There is more than suspicion that chess game starting from initial position
with perfect play ends as draw. This cannot be proven without 32 man tablebase, but suspicion is enforced by the statistical fact that each lost game contains some move or series of moves that caused this loss, but could be prevented with some other move or series of moves. "Liam Too" wrote in message om... Thanks Alexander, That's what I've been telling the Trollsby and he kept saying that chess has been solved and it's a draw. Without the 32 man Nalimov, we will never know for sure. Lance "Alexander Belov" wrote in message ... It will require 2 in power 169..172 bits to store. This is more than atoms in Universe. "Liam Too" wrote in message om... Does that mean that the 32 man Nalimov tablebases will not be developed soon and perhaps not this century, thereby Chess cannot be solved just yet? 
#10




endgame tablebases  future?
On 04 Feb 2004 11:40:27 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote: If my understanding of tablebases is correct, adding an extra man should require about sixty times more storage[1], However, it seems to me that the amount of computation goes up faster than the storage needed because with more pieces, there are more ways to reach a given position (in addition to there being roughly a factor of 60 more positions). Actually, there may be a lot more than 60 times as many positions when adding one piece. Consider each of the 5piece positions. You can add a white queen in about 59 ways, a black queen in about 59 ways, etc. Many of these are going to be duplicates, and some are symmetrical, but I think there will be an increase of a lot more than a factor of 60. I think the time might be more of a limiting factor than storage.  Replace you know what by "j" to email. 
Reply 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Forum  
endgame tablebase bug/question  rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess)  
Who was better in this endgame?  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
My first endgame study (intermediate)  rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)  
Nalimov Endgame Tablebases  rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess)  
tablebases hang Shredder7.04 with XP  rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 