Author: blass uri
Date: 09:26:24 05/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2000 at 11:47:15, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On May 08, 2000 at 08:01:49, blass uri wrote: > >>Tablebases are part of the experience of nalimov's program that created the >>tablebases. > >Nice try :o), but programs can't share experience. > >>If you include nalimov as one of the programmers of programs like >>Fritz,Hiarcs,Junior,Crafty and shredder then you can see nalimov tablebases as >>part of their experience. > >No, it's nothing but a shortcut IMHO. > >>I think that not letting programs to use tablebases is unfair because some >>programmers assumed that they will have the right to use tablebases and they >>could do different program if they knew tablebases are not allowed. > >What if a human player said the same? I can't play the opening very well and my >endgame technique stinks, but my middlegame tactics are very good. Would you >assume that he was a very good chessplayer? > >>Most customers are interested in the level of programs in their strongest >>setting and not letting programs to do it is against most of the customers. > >There's no conflict. Consumers can do what they want and use all the databases >that their heart might desire, but that's not an argument for deliberately >making weaker programs. I think that using tablebases is part of the program and I do not care if program does not know to play with no tablebases. The fact that I and many buyers have this opinion is an argument for deliberately making weaker programs in endgames by your definition. The program may be also slightly faster because it has less commands for simple endgames so from the point view of the buyers who use tablebases it is an improvment. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.