Author: Keith Evans
Date: 20:37:03 06/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2002 at 23:16:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 21, 2002 at 21:21:48, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On June 21, 2002 at 14:13:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2002 at 12:05:12, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >>> >>>>On June 21, 2002 at 11:45:40, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >>>> >>>>So you find it OK that any program that play under a specific GUI >>>>can use ANY book that is available with that GUI? Without permission >>>>of the author? >>>> >>>>You think that it is fair that such programs can have a big advantage >>>>over others by simply copying and/or merging books together that are >>>>not their property? >>>> >>>>Jeroen >>>> >>>> >>> >>>No. But neither to I find it fair that I might have to play against >>>different programs using the _same_ book _with_ permission. I believe >>>in one author per program, _period_. No shared books. No shared code. >>>Each person picks a team to associate with, and that is that... >> >>Just curious - do you consider Eugene's tablebase access code to be a special >>case of shared code, or would you object to people sharing that? >> >>-Keith > > >I consider it a "special case" that is OK. Why? Because the tables are >finite and fixed in their content. They contain perfect mate-in-N or draw >scores for a pre-defined set of positions. If I construct a valid set of >tables and you construct a valid set, the content will be identical. Since >that is the case, I don't object to everyone using them. They aren't >"custom-made" to contain suggested lines of play, for example. They would >be exactly the same for everybody if they share, or if they "roll their own." > >I would object if someone had done the tables (Eugene, say) and then he only >let a select few people use them in tournaments. Because then he would be >exerting influence on the tournament result by favoring those participants. As >it is, he favors _nobody_ since the commercial and amateur engines can all use >the tables equally. > >That is my complaint about "shared books". It is simply not a fair way to >participate... based on the one-program/one-author type of rule the ICCA has >always used... I have another question regarding shared code. Let's say that Slater or someone else makes progress with some sort of chess coprocessor. Maybe a Hsu style chip or a bitboard accelerator for example. And that same person uses it to accelerate an existing chess program such as Crafty - what would your feelings be about this? I would think that something like a bitboard processor used to accelerate Crafty would present a problem because it would really not change the nature of Crafty, it would be like running it on a faster CPU. So that person would be best off cooperating with you and jointly entering an accelerated Crafty. But how about something along the lines of a Deep Blue chip which would include it's own unique move ordering, evaluation,... If the creator of such a chip used the Crafty source as the basis for a chess program and Crafty perhaps even searched the first n plies in software, would you allow it to compete in a tournament with Crafty? Or would you try to encourage the creators of such a beast to do it completely from scratch? Maybe this would have to be decided on a case by case basis. Regards, Keith
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.