Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:58:05 05/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 12:45:26, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On May 28, 2001 at 00:46:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 28, 2001 at 00:11:24, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Neither can you do this with the egtb code. It has to be incorporated into the >>search in a way that works. It is a small part of the overall code, although >>the generator is obviously a complex/sophisticated piece of code that is not >>part of the chess engine itself. > >You can call into someone's code and get an accurate score for a position. In >some cases, the score allows you to immediately enter a won ending or avoid a >lost one. This is chess-specific knowledge, and that you have to correctly >generate the successors to the node, and check them against the EGTB stuff >doesn't diminish this. "strcmp" doesn't let you do this. > >>>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 am not sure I understand the basis of this discussion. I am sure that I am missing something since I do not use EGTBs yet. I'd like to understand because one day I might want to implement it. What is the difference with Edwards and Thompson's tablebases? I smelled that the complain is that everybody is using the _same_ code (cut and paste) to extract information from Nalimov's but in Thompson's and Edward's everyone used different code? (gotta be same algorithm though). Is that so? What did you write new? you still use the Nalimov's table? Regards, Miguel
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.