![]() This is a mere fraction of the 7.05 GB that the Nalimov tablebases require. Shredderbases, for example, used by the Shredder program, are a type of bitbase which fits all three, four and five piece bitbases in 157 MB. Sometimes even this data is compressed and the bitbase reveals only whether a position is won or not, making no difference between a lost and a drawn game. For the latter purpose, some programs use 'bitbases' which give the game-theoretical value of positions without the number of moves until conversion or mate - that is, they only reveal whether the position is won, lost or draw. Not only can computers play perfectly within an endgame, but they can simplify to a winning tablebase position from a more complicated endgame. The knowledge contained in tablebases affords the computer a tremendous advantage in the endgame. In this case the fifty-move rule is not applied, and the number of moves to mate is not taken into consideration. In 2013, ICCF changed the rules for correspondence chess tournaments starting from 2014 a player may claim a win or draw based on six-man tablebases. Thus a tablebase may identify a position as won or lost, when it is in fact drawn by the fifty-move rule. In 1992, FIDE canceled these exceptions and restored the fifty-move rule to its original standing. In 1988, FIDE allowed seventy-five moves for KBBKN, KNNKP, KQKBB, KQKNN, KRBKR, and KQPKQ with the pawn on the seventh rank, because tablebases had uncovered positions in these endgames requiring more than fifty moves to win. FIDE changed the rules several times, starting in 1974, to allow one hundred moves for endgames where fifty moves were insufficient to win. According to that rule, if fifty moves have passed without a capture or a pawn move, either player may claim a draw. Ĭompetitive players need to know that some tablebases ignore the fifty-move rule. The size of all tablebases up to seven-man is about 140 TB. The high speed of generating the tablebases was because of using a supercomputer named Lomonosov (top500). The next set of 5+2 DTM-tablebases (350 endings including KPPPPKP) was completed during August 2012. The tablebases are named Lomonosov tablebases. Vladimir Makhnychev and Victor Zakharov from Moscow State University, who completed 4+3 DTM-tablebases (525 endings including KPPPKPP) in July 2012.Peter Karrer, who constructed a specialized seven-piece tablebase (KQPPKQP) for the endgame of the Kasparov versus The World online match.Marc Bourzutschky and Yakov Konoval, who have collaborated to analyze endgames with seven pieces on the board.Guy Haworth, an academic at the University of Reading, who has published extensively in the ICGA Journal and elsewhere.Eiko Bleicher, who has adapted the tablebase concept to a program called 'Freezer' (see below).Eugene Nalimov, after whom the popular Nalimov tablebases are named.Could at least store the most common positions pretty easily right now, and 10 years down the line we'd def be able to handle a petabyte.More recent contributors have included the following people: But honestly, we aren't even that far away from being able to store on physical drives. But yes, hosting on a server would surely be an issue. Clearly it is not that hard to support 1000TB for an incredibly useful service. I can have a petabyte up there if I want! I'm one single person. I have around 1.5TB in the cloud, and I have unlimited cloud storage with my EDU e-mail. *Usually thrown in as part of a subscription for another product. Years ago, people marveled at a company hosting 5 gigabytes of data *online, but over the years it crept ip to 10 gigs, then 20 gigs, but compnies are offering to host 50 and even 100 gigs or more as part of some sort of tiered product subscription.Ī petabyte needed to host an 8 man tablebase?. I do think eventually, someday, with advances in memory technology, that it would eventually be cost effective. There seems, to the average person that the cloud has unlimited capacty, but a petabyte would be enough storage to be an monitary issue: who would pay the cost to host that? Short of new memory technology, perhaps holographic for the average desktop computer, it would be impractical to tie up a petabyte of cloud storage for an 8 man tablebase. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |