Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 21:11:24 05/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2001 at 22:12:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >It doesn't bother me for lots of reasons: (1) many programs running today >have bits and pieces of my code in them; (2) most of the algorithsm I use >today are from ideas produced by others, years ago. > >I don't think that just because you have something to "probe" for you, or >you have a library function that does something _else_ for you, that you >should be concerned about originality. IE how is it different to use EGTBs >than to use a compiler somebody else wrote to compile your program? It bothers me. And the difference between an EGTB and the CRT is that you can't input a position into the compiler and get back a move. The problem is not that you didn't write it. I don't have any problem with the fact that you didn't write the EGTB stuff. What I have a problem with is that *everyone* uses it. The problem I have is the multiple authorship problem. It's not supposed to be possible for the same individual or team to enter more than one program in the same tournament. I've never understood the argument about the compiler. If it's meant to show that you can use tools that others have used, then why shouldn't you be able to make your own version of Crafty, call it Drafty, and enter it into the WCCC? Clearly not. The difference is chess move selection. The EGTB stuff chooses a move for you, or at least in many cases causes the move selection process to be extremely simple. The fact that everyone uses it causes some stupid problems: 1) There could be bugs in it which nobody will find, because everyone operates according to the same reality. 2) FIDE chess rules are going to be changed because everyone has this EGTB crutch. It's come up in player's meetings: What happens if someone enters an ending that's a mate in 75, with move than 50 moves without capturing, promoting, or moving a pawn? Some people want to allow the EGTB stuff to take them conveniently to a win in these cases, at the expense of others who play according to the FIDE rules. The day it's decided that we have to change the rules of chess because someone is too lazy to fix this problem is the day we've lost something significant. >That point is totally lost on me. IE I use xboard for my GUI. I didn't >write that. I use a mega-million game PGN collection. I didn't develop >those. I use the same Zobrist hashing everybody else does. I didn't develop >that. The list goes on and on and on... Maybe I'm wrong about some of the EGTB issue. The actual data is just DTM for various positions, and the selection system isn't that big a deal. The amount of creativity that can go into selecting moves from the EGTB isn't high, and creativity can be added outside the Nalimov code. For example, if you are in a drawn KRN vs KR, what do you do? The Nalimov stuff will return you a lot of nice zeros, but it won't help you press for a win. So there is room to add *something*. But maybe I'm not wrong. In any case it's something of a tempest in a teapot sort of thing, as long as people don't start changing the FIDE rules to hide the bugs in the EGTB stuff. You bring up a much more important issue with this PGN thing. The PGN games are just game data. For the most part it's just raw information and no clever process was required to create it. If you're going to say that you can't use this, then nobody can use any information gained in cooperation with anyone else. You can't program in the Ruy Lopez, because knowledge of that opening traces from one person, so we have multiple program authorship through a long-dead Spanish priest, blah blah. I think this is an obviously absurd argument. But there is room for concern here, too. You don't have to surrender to this and allow Chessbase to enter Fritz, Dritz, and Gritz, which are 100% Frans Morsch in one case, and 99.8% Frans Morsch in the others. Clearly there is a difference between incorporating a search routine that someone else wrote, and reading the same Evans Gambit book that they read. If we're talking about automatically generated opening books, creating one is a difficult process. Forget about the games that go in -- assume that people use a public domain pile, or their own games, or whatever. Breaking out useful information about what move to play, based upon the results of a bunch of games, is extremely difficult to do. You know this, because you have done it. Should this code be shared amongst multiple programs? And if we're talking about manually generated books, the same thing is true. A guy designs a book for programs A, B, and C, so if you play against these in a tournament, for a very critical and occasionally very long part of the game you are playing against the same guy several times. I'd argue that both of these are examples of single-author multiple-entry. I don't really want to play against ChessBase's best book, fine-tuned for individual programs by ChessBase's best opening book tuner, five or six times at the next WMCCC. Do you? This is already happening, at least to an extent. It shouldn't be the case that someone signs a contract with ChessBase and then sighs with relief because they know they're going to gain an extra couple of points at the next tournament, because they can use opening book technology shared by all of the Chessbase products. bruce
This page took 0.01 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.