Rocky Smolin - Beach Access Software
bchacc at san.rr.com
Wed Oct 27 22:07:33 CDT 2004
Oops. Meant 64, not 32 Rocky ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rocky Smolin - Beach Access Software" <bchacc at san.rr.com> To: "Discussion of Hardware and Software issues" <dba-tech at databaseadvisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 6:52 PM Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] Questions about 2 Unusual Databases > Arthur: > > I might use an array of 32 bytes where each byte represents a square on > the board and the contents of that byte describes the piece , if any, > occupying that square. > > If you want to get into bit twiddling, it could probably be done in less > than 32 bytes. There are 6 different pieces, yes, pawn, rook, knight, > bishop, queen, king. and two colors. So it seems that the numbers 1 > through 12 could represent all the pieces of both colors. > > Rocky > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arthur Fuller" <artful at rogers.com> > To: "Discussion of Hardware and Software issues" > <dba-tech at databaseadvisors.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: [dba-Tech] Questions about 2 Unusual Databases > > >> Thanks for responding! Doubly interesting.... On the first case, part of >> the reason I keep coming back to this is that I have a gut feeling that >> brute force is all wrong for this application. What I have in mind is a >> sort of double-perspective on any given chess situation -- one that >> records the sequence and the other that records the absolute position, so >> that any two positions could be compared very rapidly without having to >> go through the move-sequences to build it. Not to suggest that the >> following is anywhere near an optimal model for recording the latter >> piece, but let's just say it might look something like this.... >> There are 64 squares and at most two pairs of 16 pieces. (Convenient >> numbers from a computing viewpoint.) So we could have a 1-D array of 64 >> elements or a 2-D array of 8*8 elements to reprsent the squares. >> Regarding the pieces, we need to distinguish white from black, but we do >> not need to distinguish Queen's knight from King's. The front row (at >> setup) is an array of 8 pawns; the back row is a ragged array of 3 pairs >> (rook, knight, bishop) and perhaps another pair or two single-element >> items, Q and K. >> To record any given position, we need to note the square of interest, the >> piece that's sitting on it and the colour of said piece. If we could map >> this compactly and effectively, we could also search it rapidly, I think. >> Let's say for the sake of argument that positions P1 and P2 differ by >> only one piece's position. Let's further say that we have employed a >> legion of low-wage workers to plug in the Book of Endings. Then (and here >> comes a large leap of faith) any position P3 could be compared to any >> known and similar position P4 that is guaranteed to result in victory (or >> defeat). I.e., P3 can be compared with P4 (victory) and the relatively >> small problem of how to get from here to there can be concentrated upon. >> If I can paint you into said corner, then I'm guaranteed to win and the >> rest is rote. >> >> ---------------- >> On problem two, I guess that we have both invested some time in this >> investigation, and that's (for me at least) a good thing. I tackled it in >> various ways, from studying and playing music to taking various academic >> courses and reading the literature on various investigations from >> researchers (not to say I'm in any way expert, but I have read some). >> From I gather, the most accurate vector of prediction is what you have >> previously listened to. As it happens, I am either "eclectic" or >> musically promiscuous -- you choose. I have almost everything Beethoven >> wrote, and Bach, and also Cecil Taylor, John Coltrane, Talking Heads, the >> Clash and Zakir Hussain, to name only a few. This opens me to radical new >> musics in a way that is simply unavailable to people acquainted with only >> one or two genres and only four or five decases of same. I'm not trying >> to toot my horn here, and if the previous sentence reads that way then I >> apologize. Here's another perspective on the point I'm attempting to >> make: when I started studying classical guitar about -- god! -- 35 years >> ago, it took me on average about 20 minutes to tune the guitar. Once two >> notes got very close to each other, I had a very difficult time >> determining which one was higher than the other. A gifted friend of mine >> cleared up the mud with a simple instruction: listen to the wa-wa-wa as >> you compare the notes. The faster the wa-wa-wa, the further the notes are >> apart. Adjust the pegs and make the wa-wa-wa slower. Once it gets to a >> "wa" per second, you're close enough for folk music. After he told me >> that, my time to tune shrank dramatically, and now I can sit in the back >> row of a nightclub and tell you in seconds who's out of tune. >> That doesn't mean that my taste in music is "better" than anyone else's. >> (We've all met stupid lawyers.) But it does say on the one hand that I >> can probably tell you whether a given melody was lifted from Bach, even >> if it was transposed and inverted and the instrumentation was changed. >> When I was in university I took a course called "History of Music." >> Doctor Ursula Rempel told us in the first class that the exam would be to >> listen to 20 fragments of music (each 10 seconds long), and we'd have to >> identify the type of work, the movement if possible, the composer if >> possible, and the year in which it was written (within 20 years). When >> the good doctor said that, I thought there's no way in the world I could >> possibly do that. This incidentally was a summer course; I attended class >> every day for 6 weeks. By exam time I thought that 10 seconds was an >> absurdly long time for each question. Ms. Rempel had taught me how to >> recognize Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Classical, Romantic, Late >> Romantic, Early Modern, 12-tone etc. almost instantly... and it was >> almost as easy to say this is German as opposed to Italian. A few trick >> questions could undermine you... for example, Schubert is pretty close to >> Beethoven, and Carl Czerny is even closer, and certain composers make a >> point of trying to confuse you with era. But the fact is that most of the >> time I can tell you (within the classical European, jazz and East-Indian >> classical music traditions) who is playing and what composition type is >> being played within seconds. If it's tricky, it might take me a minute, >> and if it takes me longer than that then I'm just guessing. >> All the foregoing was about music from the dare I say it, educated >> listener's point of view. This axis has virtually nothing to do with what >> will sell. I like to think that I have an ear for quality (don't we all), >> and I have a certain amount of evidence to cite. Not a lot of said >> evidence concerns record sales, but rather longevity. There are things >> you can do in the world of European classical music that are impossible >> in other genres. For example, I have approximately 20 recordings of Igor >> Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" and I can tell you without hesitation which >> one I consider the best, and even play fragments from the various >> versions to justify my position. You can't do that with rock, or movies, >> or most other musical genres. To a lesser extend you can do it with jazz. >> So where am I going with this? I don't want to go into the corner thats >> says great music is only for those who know. Neither do I want to go into >> the corner that says that someone who has listened only to punk or rap or >> disco or classical Indian music can pronounce upon what is great music. I >> think that a LOT more perspective is required, and a much larger >> time-frame. >> You proposed a much simpler proposition that is much easier to test. >> Let's just hope you don't come up with the musical equivalent of "Famous >> Dogs of the Civil War." Even if it does sell a jillion copies this year. >> >> LOL. I do tend to ramble on. >> A. >> There's a rule in S-F writing circles: introduce exactly 1 radical new >> concept and base your book upon that. There are numerous exceptions to >> this rule: to cite just three, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson and Philip >> Kerr. But in general, I think that the rule holds. It doesn't guarantee >> success, by any means, but it does describe many and perhaps the majority >> of successful S-F novels. >> I vaguely recall a joke about this sort of analysis, too. Some book >> publisher decided to search for the three most successful themes in >> novels, thereby to derive the formula for the next blockbuster, and after >> all the data was sifted and the numbers crunched, the software proposed >> "Famous Dogs of The Civil War." >> So in fact, your perspective (I think -- don't let me put words in your >> mouth), you nest two other questions and possibly three. IOW, you >> identify one axis as the measure of the database's success: future sales >> of the proposed artwork. That's fine, as far as it goes, but I think it >> does not go very far... except, assuming success, all the way to the >> bank. What I must applaud about this approach is its scientific >> perspective (i.e. prediction and control) -- you propose a case that can >> be tested objectively in a relatively small time-frame, whereas lofty >> frames of reference such as "greatness", "beauty", "influence over >> subsequent composers" etc. require much more subjectivity and much larger >> time-frames. >> _______________________________________________ >> dba-Tech mailing list >> dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> > > _______________________________________________ > dba-Tech mailing list > dba-Tech at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-tech > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >