TalkChess.com

Ed Trice wrote:So tell me, what compression technique did they use "20 years ago" that compressed data that used all 256 numbers from 0 to 255 within a single byte?

Oh, that's right, there was none

You know nothing about compression algorithms?

You're trapped in a runlength "tunnel vision," which is very difficult to break out of. First, let me say there were several mistakes in your post, and I don't have time to address them.

The details emerge once you are actually writing the code and getting results. You soon find out that "compression logic" for WLD does not apply to DTW. Not only that, once you figure out the compression logic, the "light bulb moment" occurs, and everything falls into place.

syzygy wrote:

Ed Trice wrote:So tell me, what compression technique did they use "20 years ago" that compressed data that used all 256 numbers from 0 to 255 within a single byte?

Oh, that's right, there was none

You know nothing about compression algorithms?

You didn't answer my question.

What did "they" use 20 years ago to compress Distance To Win for checkers?

Since you don't know, I'll inform everyone.

The answer is you didn't see past the tip of your nose when you made your post. You read what the Chinook team did, but you don't have the intelligence to realize their techniques "20 years ago" couldn't be applied to Distance To Win data. So now you look like you're an even dumber ass than before.

Instead of admitting you're wrong, you're still trying to deflect attention away from the fact you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So answer the question. Or just stop being an ass and find some other topic to troll.

Ed Trice wrote:

syzygy wrote:

Ed Trice wrote:So tell me, what compression technique did they use "20 years ago" that compressed data that used all 256 numbers from 0 to 255 within a single byte?

Oh, that's right, there was none

You know nothing about compression algorithms?

You didn't answer my question.

What did "they" use 20 years ago to compress Distance To Win for checkers?

Since you don't know, I'll inform everyone.

The answer is you didn't see past the tip of your nose when you made your post. You read what the Chinook team did, but you don't have the intelligence to realize their techniques "20 years ago" couldn't be applied to Distance To Win data. So now you look like you're an even dumber ass than before.

Instead of admitting you're wrong, you're still trying to deflect attention away from the fact you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So answer the question. Or just stop being an ass and find some other topic to troll.

Perhaps you are unaware that the poster you replied to improved compression of chess DTZ databases by more than most people would have believed possible?

Ed Trice wrote:You didn't answer my question.

You seem to have serious issues.

jwes wrote:Perhaps you are unaware that the poster you replied to improved compression of chess DTZ databases by more than most people would have believed possible?

He unaware this is are also the chess forums. The chess people know more better than the checkers.

Then also...

... the indexers are the maddest ones.

jwes wrote:Perhaps you are unaware that the poster you replied to improved compression of chess DTZ databases by more than most people would have believed possible?

I compressed the 8-piece database more than any other available program, with the ratio of over 30 positions per byte.

http://worldchampionshipcheckers.com/db ... isons.html

So, yeah, I know about compression.

I also solved checkmate in 268 for Queen + Pawn vs. Queen on an 80-square board, so I don't need any "lessons" from the peanut gallery.

The purpose of this thread was to ANNOUNCE an accomplishment, and the pissants showed up trying to discredit it.

You can all go to hell if that's your stance.

Ed Trice wrote:The purpose of this thread was to ANNOUNCE an accomplishment ...

Yes, thank you.

I've learned a bit both from you and from your interlocutors. One point is that there isn't a rule in checkers similar to the 50 move rule in chess, so all the talk about DTZ tables is weird.

Dirt wrote:

Ed Trice wrote:The purpose of this thread was to ANNOUNCE an accomplishment ...

Yes, thank you.

I've learned a bit both from you and from your interlocutors. One point is that there isn't a rule in checkers similar to the 50 move rule in chess, so all the talk about DTZ tables is weird.

There is such a rule, which differs for each checkers variant. For 8x8 checkers, mostly played in the US/UK, there is a 40 move rule (80 ply). For 10x10 draughts, mostly played in the Netherlands, France, Russia and formerly French Africa, the rule is 25 moves without conversion (50 ply) until a draw.

sources:
http://www.usacheckers.com/rulesofcheckers.php
http://www.fmjd.org/docs/Annex%201%20of ... aughts.doc

Rein Halbersma wrote:

Dirt wrote: I've learned a bit both from you and from your interlocutors. One point is that there isn't a rule in checkers similar to the 50 move rule in chess, so all the talk about DTZ tables is weird.

There is such a rule, which differs for each checkers variant. For 8x8 checkers, mostly played in the US/UK, there is a 40 move rule (80 ply). For 10x10 draughts, mostly played in the Netherlands, France, Russia and formerly French Africa, the rule is 25 moves without conversion (50 ply) until a draw.

sources:
http://www.usacheckers.com/rulesofcheckers.php
http://www.fmjd.org/docs/Annex%201%20of ... aughts.doc

What you have posted is quite official looking, but there seems to be many official rules for checkers.