Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 23:22:46 05/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 01:53:07, Christophe Theron wrote: >On May 27, 2001 at 22:57:39, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On May 27, 2001 at 20:26:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >><snip> >>> >>>I think it is interesting that so many people use the Nalimov stuff without any >>>concern that at some point while the program is playing, it is not their program >>>actually playing. That idea bothered me enough that I wrote my own stuff. >> >>Yes, this is one of the reasons (if not the main one) that I haven't put them >>into LambChop. It just goes against the grain for me to copy someone elses code >>into my program. I don't think this is a cut and dry issue and I have nothing >>against those using tablebases, but the more I think about it the more I suspect >>that I'll never include Nalimov support in my program. >> >>There are a number of ways to look at it. You could say that I didn't write the >>standard C library either, and yet I see fit to link that into my chess program. >> How are tablebases any different? Well, in some sense they aren't, and really >>the Nalimov user should be applauded for demonstrating excellent software >>re-use! >> >>But then writing a chess program isn't an exercise in software re-use otherwise >>we wouldn't do it at all, we'd all just go out and buy the latest Fritz or >>Shredder or Tiger or whatever. At some point you have to draw the line about >>what you are *not* going to re-use, of course that is a personal choice but >>there are also rules that apply for tournaments. >> >>Tablebase use is accepted practice these days, although I think it violates the >>old ICCA rules and I'm not sure if they've updated those rules yet. Those rules >>were there to stop things like people taking crafty and modifying a few lines >>and entering it into a tournament. Now this isn't quite the same as using >>tablebases, though there are *similarities* - both involve using someone else's >>chess algorithm code. The fundamental differene being that convention has come >>down in favour of using tablebases which is fine by me but not fine for me. >> >>Well, enough rambling from me - got to go work on my new 7 man tablebase >>compression scheme. >> >>Peter > > > >I generally agree with you about the ethics and reluctance to use the Nalimov >tablebases. > >On the other hand, here is how I justify to myself using them in Tiger: almost >everybody else is using them, from amateurs to professionals. They get an unfair >advantage with this. You can justify almost anything with this. For instance: An individual could "justify" cheating, since the other cheaters would otherwise have an unfair advantage. Silly. It is sufficient to acknowledge that *everything* we do is built upon the work of others. As long as acknowledge this and pay them their due, you've already done everthing you are ethically required to do. With the the Nalimov TBs, you only need to ask his permission, give credit where credit is due and to say "thank you". > >By using them myself, I just nullify the unfait advantage of my opponents. So we >all get back to the interesting part of the job: finding new original ideas to >improve our programs. > > > > Christophe
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.