Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 09:33:47 05/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2001 at 00:15:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 28, 2001 at 12:45:26, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>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. > >But think back about 30 years and visualize this conversation: "You can't >use that scanf() function because someone else wrote it, and even though >it is pretty straightforward to write a function to read in data based on >simple format options, you have to do that yourself or else the program you >write really isn't "yours" to use.. For the Nth time, functions like scanf do not return "mate in 32", or "play Qd8", or "this pawn structure is worth 33 centipawns". I don't care about software reuse for peripheral things. I care about it in the guts of the program. >That isn't too far off. Yes, EGTB is chess specific. But we are all doing >chess programming. And it just happens to be a useful library routine. I >wouldn't mind (and there is such an animal by the way) for everyone to use >a good PGN parser rather than writing their own, as it would eliminate a lot >of crap PGN that certain programs seem obsessed with producing. If I wanted to use Edwards PGN stuff I would have no problem with doing it, since (see above), this is not returning "mate in 32", etc. >>I don't care if you didn't write printf. What I care is that some of the code >>being reused has chess knowledge in it. It is not okay to enter two programs >>into the WCCC, but in a minor sense, Eugene has many. > >Then by this argument aren't the various authors of the normal C library >also "team members" as their code is essential (reading files, etc.). What >happens if someone build a special-purpose board that anyone can grab, which >will probe the EGTBs very efficiently? What if this ends up in the micro- >processor of 2010? For the something more than Nth time, I don't care about this, since these functions are not returning "mate in 32", etc. There has to be a line somewhere, to keep me from pulling your whole eval function out and using it directly. That might be good software reuse, but it screws up a competitive event, where the point is to have original code competing. It seems obvious that the line is drawn somewhere between "printf" and code that does search, evaluation, and move selection. >>The mate in 75 problem can be fixed and improved upon. As of now, everyone has >>to wait for Eugene to do it for them. I don't. If I want to fix this in my >>stuff, or if I want to not use EGTB because I can't tolerate this bug, I should >>have an advantage when it's time to play. The argument that "everyone" has this >>bug, and therefore it should be codified into the rules, is poor. > > >I don't buy that argument either. We have talked about solutions to the >problem, although the idea of fixing such a thing, only to have FIDE next >year change the 50-move rule again is a bit much when you think of the >wasted compute cycles if this happens. If I fix it in mine, and yours says mate in 78, and mine says draw, and 50 moves later the came is a draw by FIDE rules, I should get a half point. What could your argument be that I shouldn't get a half point. That "everyone" is using the Nalimov tables? This is my point exactly. Someone who enters the mate in 78 ending without any tables at all should also get the draw 50 moves later. What's the alternative? To force this guy to reset the 50-move counter so it will continue to play, so you don't have to fix your bug? >>I don't care about the GUI stuff. Winboard doesn't pick a move for you. For >>the Nth time, I am not at all concerned about code sharing in the general case. >>What I'm concerned about is sharing of code that selects moves, or provides >>substantial assistance to a program when it's time to select a move. > > > >I think we mainly differ on our opinion of "substantial" in your statement. >I think the EGTB stuff is a tiny part of the overall engine. As I have also stated several times, I think the EGTB argument is a minor issue compared to the book reuse issue. Most people think that EGTB is drudge work. It's hard to get it right, it takes a lot of disk space and time, and Eugene has already done it correctly. Essentially he's solved the problem, and nobody coming along later is going to make a better one, with the exception of the 50-move bug. It does bother me though, because it sets a bad precedent. >>If someone wants to make set of chess piece bitmaps and give them to everyone, I >>don't care. If someone writes a king safety routine and gives that to everyone, >>I do care. >> >>That kind of thing is unfair and destroys innovation. > >There's plenty of room for innovation left. Better (still) indexing >schemes. Better compression. 50-move rule fixes. Better (less resource >intensive) construction algorithms... etc... And who is working on this? Why should they work on this if they can just use Eugene's thing? >The bubble sort didn't end innovation in sorting... The bubble sort didn't solve the problem effectively enough. But this does provide an argument about why the EGTB issue doesn't matter *that* much. If there had been sorting competitions, and someone created a sort that was demonstrably optimal, there would be no more interest in the competition. If the sort was a part of another competition, it might be agreed that it's possible to reuse the sort and work on the other parts, since part of the problem has been "solved". This is the de facto situation with the Nalimov tables now. If the 50-move bug ever comes up in practice though, and I'm there to see it, the guy whose program follows FIDE rules is going to get the half-point though. >>Conversion of formats may be a viable choice, and may rescue this, but don't you >>have a problem with the idea that I'm faced with the problem of standardizing on >>a means of selecting chess moves? > >Remember that we already live with PGN and SAN. A probe routine is not >that far away. Even a standard opening book access method would not be >to far beyond reality, and it would eliminate a lot of book preparation. :) PGN and SAN don't return "mate in 32", etc. >>Like I said though, this is a tempest in a teapot. Most people don't care. The >>issue is not that big a deal until it starts to encroach upon the middlegame, >>until Eugene's stuff provides a means of selecting between drawn moves in order >>to pick the one with the most winning chances, or unless this sets a precedent >>for sharing opening books and opening book generators. >> >>It is absolutely reasonable to demand that people don't share opening books, >>opening book generators, and obviously core search and eval code. > >I agree, although the book issue is _already_ a problem. I agree that the opening book is the biggest problem here. I would obviously give up the whole EGTB argument in exchange for the opening book argument. >>But there is a certain amount of competition built into this, and if this is to >>remain, there needs to be a limit to the amount of cooperation that can occur. >> >>I argue that, for instance, letting someone incorporate your pawn structure code >>verbatim, is too much cooperation. > > >This seems hard to handle. They might take all my ideas, but from discussion >with me rather than from the code. That would be hard to "police"... IMHO.. It is hard to police but it's still wrong. Taking all of Crafty is not that much different than taking a sigifnicant portion. If someone can read it and understand it, and implement their own that does the same thing, and maybe add a new idea or two, no problem. The issues here are similar to the issues involved when we're talking about plagiarism of academic works. >>That's all mindless data-entry, Bob, and if you're going to claim that this >>provides an open season on all forms of "code sharing", we are dicked. You've >>just opened the way for anyone to make a slight mod to Crafty and enter it into >>the WCCC. >I hope not. I am just pointing out that we _all_ use things developed >by others... Of course, but we "all" don't use "mate in 32", etc. source code written by others. >>The opening book author is an author of the program. I don't have a problem >>with a guy doing the book for any other program, but I don't want to have to >>play against it several times in the same tournament. These days, with everyone >>and their dog becoming a ChessBase engine, you could end up getting outbooked by >>a relatively new program, the programmer of which has done essentially no >>opening book work. >> >>That's not fair, and it stifles development in this field. > >I don't disagree. However, I think that enforcing a rule restricting this >would be hard... Yes, but the rule isn't even discussed now. How many programs are going to show up at the next WMCCC running the ChessBase interface and using some ChessBase book created using the same process and/or by the same person? Here I am having to consider doing an incredible pile of work in order to avoid losing on move 13 to someone who never had to dick with any of this. 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.