Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 03:19:01 05/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2002 at 14:39:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On May 02, 2002 at 13:29:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 01, 2002 at 14:41:39, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On May 01, 2002 at 10:02:58, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>> >>>>On May 01, 2002 at 09:33:58, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>>In the meantime I have sent a letter to the ICCA to clarify matters. >>>>> >>>>>Jeroen >>>> >>>>In a competition, do you consider a book part of the engine? >>>>Is anything about this included in your proposal? >>>>I have not seen your opinion about this. (maybe I lost it in the dozens >>>>of replies). >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Miguel >>> >>>IMO the engine is the part of the program that selects a move to play. Since the >>>opening book, and EGTB's are used to select a move to play, they are part of the >>>engine, IMO. >>> >>>Russell >> >> >>I don't count EGTBs because of the nature of the information they contain. >> >>Steven Edwards did tables. Eugene did them in a different format. Thompson >>did the same followed by Stiller. Bruce did his own format. Vincent did one >>although I don't know if he ever finished it. >> >>But, with all of that, they are all accessed in the same way, and they produce >>the same identical information for the same position. Therefore there is >>nothing "unique" in them that would make my version distinct from your version, >>other than the compression technique (if any) and the order of the pieces used >>to produce the Godel number. >> >>I see no problem with people sharing a good list of random numbers to see the >>Zobrist hashing algorithm, any more than I see any problem sharing tables, since >>the two kinds of data are identical in nature. Books are far different, >>however, and are a big sticking point in current rules. > >I have to agree with bob for practical reasons. In 1999 i remember the >big impact of EGTBs at tournament level of DIEP. In 2001 and 2002 i see >hardly any game where EGTBs matter. Let alone the 50 move rule within >EGTBs. > >Chance that this matters is only a 1/1000000 of a chance from the times >you need EGTB position. Chance it matters for result is even smaller. > >Eugene is nowadays 'claiming' copyright onto 'his' egtb probing >code. Pretty amazing. > What do you mean "claiming" and "his"?? Eugene doesn't need to "claim" anything. He wrote the code, the copyright is his until he says otherwise. Those portions that were written by Andrew Kadatch belong to Andrew Kadatch, unless and until he says otherwise. You don't need to "claim" copyright on anything you have written. The copyright is yours, end of story. Andrew >We can argue about that. We can argue about a lot of things, but >EGTBs are no compare with openingbooks. Especially the big progress >in endgame of most programs make them really insignificant. > >I could play without EGTBs coming tournament, simply because chance >evaluatoin goes to a lost EGTB endgame in a drawn position now is >like a zillion times smaller than a few years ago.
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.