Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:39:35 05/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2002 at 06:19:01, Andrew Williams wrote: >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 > because the code was first released to be used freely. copyright was only claimed later. > >>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.