webmaster at usjc.uwaterloo.ca
Mon Oct 27 14:57:09 EST 1997
>>As a bit of a chess study, I find myself thinking that a distributed
>>chess engine is actually quite a good idea. Deep Blue's advantage was
>>not only speed, but that it had an enormous library of games that it had
>>"played" against itself. Why can't distributed.net do this? We don't
>>even need to schedule any games against any other players. Simply build
>>up a database (albeit enormous one) of _all_possible_moves_. Yes, this
>>is a huge number (perhaps larger than RC5-128?), but then again there
>>are chunks of moves that we simply don't need to process (who really
>>moves 1. a2-a4?). If we eliminate these trees, that's a lot of moves
>>eliminated from our search.
>Perhaps larger than RC128? DEFINITELY!
>The keyservers and clients don't store a whole key, they store an OFFSET
>that describes the keyblock. So they don't keep information about all of
>the 268million keys in a block, just the offset for the beginning of the
>Describing a board configuration and the move therein would take a lot more
>data than describing a single RC-128 key, and describing all possible board
>configurations and all possible moves for that board. Whoa, that's a HUGRE
I've mentioned in another posts that the most reasonable approach for the
time being maybe to augment Ken Thompson's table bases (in essence
backsolve chess) we could easily do the six or seven man classes.
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.
More information about the rc5