S.Taylor wrote:
...
Just think how wonderful it would be, if any position with up to 11 pieces, is totally worked out to perfection!
(I'm speaking from a little amount of observation and thought, that 11 would hit a goldmine, but that 10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary. It would be interesting to know if the greatest experts and geniuses and chess visionaries would agree about this).
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
arjuntemurnikar wrote:I wonder what are people's thoughts on this.
Assuming he's including the kings into the number 7 (which he does, as he also mentions the number 32), he's not very up to date. The 7-piece tables have all been generated already. https://plus.google.com/100454521496393505718/posts
Magnus obviously doesn't know Aquarium
I just realised Magnus must have been thinking about 6v1 tables. They have not been generated yet
S.Taylor wrote:
...
Just think how wonderful it would be, if any position with up to 11 pieces, is totally worked out to perfection!
(I'm speaking from a little amount of observation and thought, that 11 would hit a goldmine, but that 10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary. It would be interesting to know if the greatest experts and geniuses and chess visionaries would agree about this).
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
I've answered that. If YOU think it only needs 8 or 9, or if you think it needs 12, 25 or 32, then tell me your thoughts. I speak from contemplation, observation of games, experience of chess in general. There IS also a slight bit of mathematical thinking involved!
How many bytes needed to hold such an amount of material? Probably an enormous amount! I admit that if we WILL (or do) have 7-piece, we might not get to 8, in our lifetime. 9-piece, maybe never ever. But with great determination and motivation, we could probably do a bit more than without it. (but I'm speculating that IF with a huge amount of rescources we might decide we can one day reach 10, but never 11, then possibly we should not bother if i am right that only 11 would make a great completion and 10 not).
S.Taylor wrote:
...
Just think how wonderful it would be, if any position with up to 11 pieces, is totally worked out to perfection!
(I'm speaking from a little amount of observation and thought, that 11 would hit a goldmine, but that 10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary. It would be interesting to know if the greatest experts and geniuses and chess visionaries would agree about this).
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
I've answered that. If YOU think it only needs 8 or 9, or if you think it needs 12, 25 or 32, then tell me your thoughts. I speak from contemplation, observation of games, experience of chess in general. There IS also a slight bit of mathematical thinking involved!
How many bytes needed to hold such an amount of material? Probably an enormous amount! I admit that if we WILL (or do) have 7-piece, we might not get to 8, in our lifetime. 9-piece, maybe never ever. But with great determination and motivation, we could probably do a bit more than without it. (but I'm speculating that IF with a huge amount of rescources we might decide we can one day reach 10, but never 11, then possibly we should not bother if i am right that only 11 would make a great completion and 10 not).
Just to keep things in perspective: I was born in 1983. I did a bit of googling and I'm pretty sure there were no complete 5-men tablebases back then (or if there were, they were pretty new). But now there are complete 7-men tablebases. So that's at least 3 additional pieces in one's lifetime.
S.Taylor wrote:
...
Just think how wonderful it would be, if any position with up to 11 pieces, is totally worked out to perfection!
(I'm speaking from a little amount of observation and thought, that 11 would hit a goldmine, but that 10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary. It would be interesting to know if the greatest experts and geniuses and chess visionaries would agree about this).
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
I've answered that. If YOU think it only needs 8 or 9, or if you think it needs 12, 25 or 32, then tell me your thoughts. I speak from contemplation, observation of games, experience of chess in general. There IS also a slight bit of mathematical thinking involved!
How many bytes needed to hold such an amount of material? Probably an enormous amount! I admit that if we WILL (or do) have 7-piece, we might not get to 8, in our lifetime. 9-piece, maybe never ever. But with great determination and motivation, we could probably do a bit more than without it. (but I'm speculating that IF with a huge amount of rescources we might decide we can one day reach 10, but never 11, then possibly we should not bother if i am right that only 11 would make a great completion and 10 not).
Just to keep things in perspective: I was born in 1983. I did a bit of googling and I'm pretty sure there were no complete 5-men tablebases back then (or if there were, they were pretty new). But now there are complete 7-men tablebases. So that's at least 3 additional pieces in one's lifetime.
S.Taylor wrote:
...
Just think how wonderful it would be, if any position with up to 11 pieces, is totally worked out to perfection!
(I'm speaking from a little amount of observation and thought, that 11 would hit a goldmine, but that 10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary. It would be interesting to know if the greatest experts and geniuses and chess visionaries would agree about this).
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
I've answered that. If YOU think it only needs 8 or 9, or if you think it needs 12, 25 or 32, then tell me your thoughts. I speak from contemplation, observation of games, experience of chess in general. There IS also a slight bit of mathematical thinking involved!
How many bytes needed to hold such an amount of material? Probably an enormous amount! I admit that if we WILL (or do) have 7-piece, we might not get to 8, in our lifetime. 9-piece, maybe never ever. But with great determination and motivation, we could probably do a bit more than without it. (but I'm speculating that IF with a huge amount of rescources we might decide we can one day reach 10, but never 11, then possibly we should not bother if i am right that only 11 would make a great completion and 10 not).
Just to keep things in perspective: I was born in 1983. I did a bit of googling and I'm pretty sure there were no complete 5-men tablebases back then (or if there were, they were pretty new). But now there are complete 7-men tablebases. So that's at least 3 additional pieces in one's lifetime.
There is a problem of orders of magnitude in your thinking.
S.Taylor wrote:
...
Just think how wonderful it would be, if any position with up to 11 pieces, is totally worked out to perfection!
(I'm speaking from a little amount of observation and thought, that 11 would hit a goldmine, but that 10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary. It would be interesting to know if the greatest experts and geniuses and chess visionaries would agree about this).
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
I've answered that. If YOU think it only needs 8 or 9, or if you think it needs 12, 25 or 32, then tell me your thoughts. I speak from contemplation, observation of games, experience of chess in general. There IS also a slight bit of mathematical thinking involved!
How many bytes needed to hold such an amount of material? Probably an enormous amount! I admit that if we WILL (or do) have 7-piece, we might not get to 8, in our lifetime. 9-piece, maybe never ever. But with great determination and motivation, we could probably do a bit more than without it. (but I'm speculating that IF with a huge amount of rescources we might decide we can one day reach 10, but never 11, then possibly we should not bother if i am right that only 11 would make a great completion and 10 not).
Just to keep things in perspective: I was born in 1983. I did a bit of googling and I'm pretty sure there were no complete 5-men tablebases back then (or if there were, they were pretty new). But now there are complete 7-men tablebases. So that's at least 3 additional pieces in one's lifetime.
There is a problem of orders of magnitude in your thinking.
regards
No there isn't. The jumps I mentioned also involve orders of magnitude.
IGarcia wrote:
How you conclude about 11 number? "10 would still miss it but also that 12 will not be necesary" Its based on same mathematics you use to determine earth age (5774 years) ?
Do you realize the amount of bytes to hold a 10 or 11 TB?
very basically if every extra piece takes up to 60 times as much space then to get to 10 pieces would need 216,000 times as much space as 7 pieces. 7 piece takes 100 tb so 10 pieces would be about 22 million terrabaytes.
currently the size of internet is 5 million terabytes. by 2017 it should be 20 million.
in theory then in a couple of years it may be technically feasible to store 10 pieces. in practice, assuming 7 years a piece it should be 2035
My generator (with a few minor modifications) would need a machine with 1TB of shared memory to generate 7-piece tables. Such machines exist, but I don't have one Smile. I suppose they will become affordable eventually.
Maybe if you make the necessary modifications someone will pick up the generation?
My generator (with a few minor modifications) would need a machine with 1TB of shared memory to generate 7-piece tables. Such machines exist, but I don't have one Smile. I suppose they will become affordable eventually.
Maybe if you make the necessary modifications someone will pick up the generation?
In TB generation, problem is not the generation or the amount of RAM needed. Problem is that practically no one has enough disk capacity to store them... Or are you prepared to host 200TBs of data?
