bob wrote:
I don't know how to predict what will happen as we approach perfection. I only know that if you wait long enough chess will eventually get there, assuming the sun continues to burn at the present rate, etc... I don't see any way to project to perfect play since we have no idea of what perfect play looks like..
if each piece in a end game table base takes up 60 times as much space as the previous one.
and assuming moor's law continues with hard disk space so every 10 years we can add on another piece. we have 7 now, so we need to find room for another 25 pieces. 25 * 10 = 250 years.
why would it take much longer than 250 years to get to 32 pieces. ?(Assuming you find the space)
also how many pieces does the tablebase have to have before today's computer can reach it in search at opening position.?
duncan wrote:if each piece in a end game table base takes up 60 times as much space as the previous one.
and assuming moor's law continues with hard disk space so every 10 years we can add on another piece. we have 7 now, so we need to find room for another 25 pieces. 25 * 10 = 250 years.
why would it take much longer than 250 years to get to 32 pieces. ?(Assuming you find the space)
also how many pieces does the tablebase have to have before today's computer can reach it in search at opening position.?
Assuming a few atoms per position, it's going to take something more than the mass of the moon to store the tablebase. Trying to find enough of the right atoms is challenging, and this also brings access rate problems. It's going to take a long time to build.
Maybe there are shortcuts I can't envision, but I still can't see it ever being worth the effort involved.
duncan wrote:if each piece in a end game table base takes up 60 times as much space as the previous one.
and assuming moor's law continues with hard disk space so every 10 years we can add on another piece. we have 7 now, so we need to find room for another 25 pieces. 25 * 10 = 250 years.
why would it take much longer than 250 years to get to 32 pieces. ?(Assuming you find the space)
also how many pieces does the tablebase have to have before today's computer can reach it in search at opening position.?
Assuming a few atoms per position, it's going to take something more than the mass of the moon to store the tablebase. Trying to find enough of the right atoms is challenging, and this also brings access rate problems. It's going to take a long time to build.
Maybe there are shortcuts I can't envision, but I still can't see it ever being worth the effort involved.
atoms are very 20th century. in the 23rd century there might be better information storage options available no bigger than a sugar cube
but zillions (meaning “too many and too changeable to count usefully”) of lightweight particles called quarks, antiquarks and gluons.
...
To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.
Dirt wrote:
Assuming a few atoms per position, it's going to take something more than the mass of the moon to store the tablebase. Trying to find enough of the right atoms is challenging, and this also brings access rate problems. It's going to take a long time to build.
Maybe there are shortcuts I can't envision, but I still can't see it ever being worth the effort involved.
looking more to the near future, it took 7 years to get to 7 pieces in aug 12. in a further 7 years 2019, do you think 8 pieces will be solved.?
wiki link.
By 2005, all chess positions with up to six pieces (including the two kings) had been solved. By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered uninteresting).[1][2]
Can we have the handicap book? I would just like to have the one without the piece. I myself lost already to engines in blitz games with piece odds like 5 years ago. And I remember watching naka play this handicap engine in bullet. He won with rooks odds but sightly lost with the knight odds. Time is just really important for humans. 45 minutes is already a bit too little. We need more to avoid the most blunders. I also feel Robert Hyatt is like those people before 2000. He just likes to always defend the computers instead of humans. Nothing has changed really, only the subject.
Edit. And we definitely want to see those blitz games too.
