Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:06:01 05/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2001 at 13:58:05, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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? I wrote my own stuff. It was very hard to do. I haven't pushed this issue much because I don't want people to think that I'm trying to argue that I should be allowed to use endgame tables and others shouldn't. I wrote my own in part because I don't want an engine co-author in any form. I think the issue is worth considering because here you have a bunch of programs using the same source code to evaluate positions. This is not a good precedent. But this is a minor issue compared to shared opening books, since the opening book is important in *every* game. bruce
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.