7 piece tablebases... when?

[kranium]

You also have to remember, the engine itself has to be programmer to use the 6 man and 7 man tbs.

If they aren't, then they only find the 3-4-5 man bases and use those. Just because you have downloaded them, doesn't mean your engine _uses_ them.

Crafty can be compiled to use the 6 man bases. Which others use them?

Where does one even download the 6 man bases anymore?

6 man Robbobases have been available for Ippolit engines since Nov 11, 2010...

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TotalBases+Download
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TripleBases+Download

This includes the complete set of 6-man 'Blocked' Z bases.

[Terry McCracken]

You also have to remember, the engine itself has to be programmer to use the 6 man and 7 man tbs.

If they aren't, then they only find the 3-4-5 man bases and use those. Just because you have downloaded them, doesn't mean your engine _uses_ them.

Crafty can be compiled to use the 6 man bases. Which others use them?

Where does one even download the 6 man bases anymore?

they have been available for Ippolit engines since Nov 11, 2010...

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TotalBases+Download
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TripleBases+Download

Do they really work correctly? You would need a huge HDD and very fast.

In memory it would be crazy, terabytes! Very expensive.

[kranium]

You also have to remember, the engine itself has to be programmer to use the 6 man and 7 man tbs.

If they aren't, then they only find the 3-4-5 man bases and use those. Just because you have downloaded them, doesn't mean your engine _uses_ them.

Crafty can be compiled to use the 6 man bases. Which others use them?

Where does one even download the 6 man bases anymore?

they have been available for Ippolit engines since Nov 11, 2010...

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TotalBases+Download
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TripleBases+Download

Do they really work correctly? You would need a huge HDD and very fast.

In memory it would be crazy, terabytes! Very expensive.

Hi Terry,

Yes, they work very well.
The IvanHoe developers have occupied themselves for the last year with Robbobase improvements, bug fixes, and further development, etc., instead of ELO increases, much to the chagrin of many.

And many users have downloaded the complete set (including blocked) and use them for analysis...

As you say, they do demand ample HD space...the 6 piece alone bases take up ~ 700 GB,
luckily enough, HDD space is also increasing at a tremendous (exponential?) rate.
many new systems today have 1 Terrabyte or more...? How much does a fast internal 1 Terrabyte drives cost?
(it's not much, IMO).

Immortal forum has much more information regarding this...

Norm

[Arpad Rusz]

Crafty can be compiled to use the 6 man bases. Which others use them?
Where does one even download the 6 man bases anymore?

Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and many other engines can use the 6 men Nalimov tablebases.

The 6 men Nalimov tablebases can be dowloaded from here:
http://tablebase.sesse.net/
Or you can use eMule to dowload them, see the following link:
http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/tablebases-online/

[kranium]

You also have to remember, the engine itself has to be programmer to use the 6 man and 7 man tbs.

If they aren't, then they only find the 3-4-5 man bases and use those. Just because you have downloaded them, doesn't mean your engine _uses_ them.

Crafty can be compiled to use the 6 man bases. Which others use them?

Where does one even download the 6 man bases anymore?

they have been available for Ippolit engines since Nov 11, 2010...

http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TotalBases+Download
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/TripleBases+Download

Do they really work correctly? You would need a huge HDD and very fast.

In memory it would be crazy, terabytes! Very expensive.

Hi Terry,

Yes, they work very well.
The IvanHoe developers have occupied themselves for the last year with Robbobase improvements, bug fixes, and further development, etc., instead of ELO increases, much to the chagrin of many.

And many users have downloaded the complete set (including blocked) and use them for analysis...

As you say, they do demand ample HD space...the 6 piece alone bases take up ~ 700 GB,
luckily enough, HDD space is also increasing at a tremendous (exponential?) rate.
many new systems today have 1 Terrabyte or more...? How much does a fast internal 1 Terrabyte drives cost?
(it's not much, IMO).

Immortal forum has much more information regarding this...

Norm

What's really exciting about the Robbobase development is some of the the new 'bulk load' code, and consequent UCI options:

the user can specify a directory to 'bulk load'....
so, on a system with oodles of RAM, the data can be loaded into memory...with subsequent lightning fast access.
So, goodbye slow disk access, and thrashing...

from ROBBO_TRIPLE_INFO (inlcuded with IvanHoe999947c):

"setoption name RobboTripleBulkLoadThisDirectory value /media/disk/RobboTripleBase/5"
This option will BulkLoad the entire 5/ directory. The same can do for Z/ and 33/ and any others. Then they will sit in RAM and not any longer in the Dynamic system. The 5/ directory can be around 570MB. You can Detach with the complement RobboTripleBulkDetachThisDirectory and then will evict from RAM but stay in Dynamic load from disk."

Time for all of us to get a 'dedicated chess monster'...with many cores, tons of RAM ,and huge HDD's to hold the huge 'databases' of chess (endings and more?) which is inevitably coming...
'Chapeau' to the IvanHoe developers!

[UncombedCoconut]

What's really exciting about the Robbobase development is some of the the new 'bulk load' code, and consequent UCI options:

the user can specify a directory to 'bulk load'....
so, on a system with oodles of RAM, the data can be loaded into memory...with subsequent lightning fast access.
So, goodbye slow disk access, and thrashing...

For a "power user" savvy enough to care, it seems like it would be more convenient to just drop the files inside a RAM disk than to have the engine shunt them into RAM every time it runs.
In any case, RobboBases do seem to be an excellent feat of engineering. Cappelli rimosso.

[Milos]

7 piece files will require roughly 2^36 bytes, probably a bit more. For just one. For both sides, double that. That's on up there with today's technology, not to mention the problem of "how do you get 'em"??

I don't know how you calculated it, but 2^36 is only 64GB which is ridiculously small.
For once Terry wrote something meaningful.
The new non-volatile very fast access storage technology will become reality in next 2-3 years on enterprise servers and in less than 10 in wide consumer market and it will make Flash look like a bad joke. It will have under 1us write cycle and around 100ns read cycle, therefore making 10M reads per second reality which is faster than today's NPS's even on fastest machines.

[UncombedCoconut]

I don't know how you calculated it, but 2^36 is only 64GB which is ridiculously small.
For once Terry wrote something meaningful.
The new non-volatile very fast access storage technology will become reality in next 2-3 years on enterprise servers and in less than 10 in wide consumer market and it will make Flash look like a bad joke. It will have under 1us write cycle and around 100ns read cycle, therefore making 10M reads per second reality which is faster than today's NPS's even on fastest machines.

64GB is ridiculously small? Good grief... would you care to trade incomes?
I'm not quite sure which Flash replacement you're talking about. Is it the memristor system that HP is developing?

[Dann Corbit]

I don't know how you calculated it, but 2^36 is only 64GB which is ridiculously small.
For once Terry wrote something meaningful.
The new non-volatile very fast access storage technology will become reality in next 2-3 years on enterprise servers and in less than 10 in wide consumer market and it will make Flash look like a bad joke. It will have under 1us write cycle and around 100ns read cycle, therefore making 10M reads per second reality which is faster than today's NPS's even on fastest machines.

64GB is ridiculously small? Good grief... would you care to trade incomes?
I'm not quite sure which Flash replacement you're talking about. Is it the memristor system that HP is developing?

http://www.frys.com/product/5833623
80 GB is $160
I don't think that qualifies as 'wealthy'

[bob]

7 piece files will require roughly 2^36 bytes, probably a bit more. For just one. For both sides, double that. That's on up there with today's technology, not to mention the problem of "how do you get 'em"??

I don't know how you calculated it, but 2^36 is only 64GB which is ridiculously small.
For once Terry wrote something meaningful.
The new non-volatile very fast access storage technology will become reality in next 2-3 years on enterprise servers and in less than 10 in wide consumer market and it will make Flash look like a bad joke. It will have under 1us write cycle and around 100ns read cycle, therefore making 10M reads per second reality which is faster than today's NPS's even on fastest machines.

I'm being generous. (1) each piece requires 6 bits to indicate the square. So 7 pieces require 7 groups of 6 bits or 2^42. But you can do some optimization to reduce that a bit, such as restricting the king to 1/8th of the squares (assuming no pawns) and then compression on top of that. But 64 gb for a single file seems small, until you calculate how many files there are. It is beyond mind-boggling...

In 10 years, who knows. But the question was about today. And today they are simply impractical. I could build 'em all on a cluster we have that has petabytes of storage. But I could not distribute, nor would I want to store them there permanently... And I wouldn't have a zillion DVDs to archive them in a practical way.