Author: Jonas Bylund
Date: 22:48:15 04/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
>You mean whether it's textmode or graphical i guess. > >It's graphical GUI :) So i guess it runs in DOS mode ;) Will it run under Winboard? (i know i have asked this before, but i use WinXP exclusively and i really don't like DOS) >Success is relative. I do not earn a penny on EGTBs. I just waste time in fact >on it. I could earn money in that time instead. So success is relative. Indeed success is relative and in this case it is relative to the existing format, compared to that, 10-20 Gb would be hugely successful. However if you mean success relative to your standards it is a different story of course, and i mean that in a general sense. If you measure success relative to money, then IMO i would say you have failed already, since true reward does not need reckognition nor payment. >I do not see it as a success. Getting even 5th in world champs is way harder. >Getting #300 on ATP list in tennis even harder than that. I have in total >written 3 different generators now for egtb's and each project was only a few >days worth. Very easy to make in fact. I'm sure any programmer who has past >beginners stage can make it. > >If you compare that with a chess engine, a chessengine is 1000x harder to get to >a strong level. > >Even generating the first 7 men which i expect to do real soon i do not consider >as a big success. I'm sure Eugene could do that too knowing his huge hardware. >However i plan to make a special generator for the 7 man a lot faster than any >generator before. I had a while ago a generator which was very fast. > >It's easier than some guess to do all that. The problem is it is all volunteer >work in some sense. Also the importance for chessprograms of egtb's is smaller >nowadays than it used to be say in 1999. > >The impact of the first programs using 5 men was way bigger than 6 men now. > >The reason is the huge improvement of chess software (the top 10 of the world >that is). > >I remember junior playing at world champs 2003 with just all 5 men turned on. > >Note i didn't use any egtb at the world champs 2003. That's interesting, why not? especially when you have such compressed tb's. >In both cases i do not see the problem. > >Also note that where i love small egtb's, chessbase shows up with huge machines >with a lot of ram and harddisk packs. I believe it was Lasker who once said "Play the board not the man" i find new uses for that phrase on a daily basis, in this case i would say that all the time and energy that are potentially wasted on focusing on your opponent/s, could be invested in your own development and preparation. >I just cannot afford harddisk packs as i have no sponsor. I'm sure they keep on >using nalimov for some years to go. No need to change. The effect of the egtb's >is getting less anyway. The current generation of software is not stupid enough >to allow to get to an endgame which is dead lost. > >Even when some hard egtb's come there: > >for example what happens sometimes is: > > KRP KRP > >it is very *unlikely* that by accident some commercial program goes to an >endgame which is lost. if it is forced in such an endgame it probably is already >down more than minus 2, so it not exactly volunteerly went into that position. Sometimes winning a +2 endgame can be really hard, even for computers and i would be very surprised if the programX with 3+4+5+6+7 men tb's wouldn't win that scenario more frequently than programY without the tb's >the evaluations have advanced too much to let them get fooled easily. i noticed >that fritz is doing a good job there especially. it has improved a lot in rook >endgames the last so many versions. i was a live witness of that at world champs >2002 in fact. diep managed to get some won rook endgame (rpp versus rp) but >fritz very convincingly drew it. diep had no clue it was a draw. fritz did. Well i guess it wasn't a won endgame then :) >Even for yace i doubt whether any rook endgame EGTB will save its ass somewhere. >It usually is doing it itself much better :) > >>I am not implying that we all have a similar standard when it comes to giving >>our work away, but people who know me fairly well, knows that if they need >>anything, that be music, webdesign, painting, ideas etc.all they need to do is >>ask and i will provide it for free if i have the time. Not too long ago someone >>saw one of my paintings (he lives in USA) and really liked one particular >>painting and i sent it to him free of charge, - shipping charges. >>I can say that giving without asking anything in return is _extremely_ >>liberating, but if that dosn't do it for you, i respect that too. > >Why would i provide to competitors for free source code of egtb's? Because IMO the more "things" we hang on to in our lives, the more tied up we get, the happiest people i know are people who give/share without strings or conditions. That was the philosophical answer, now on to the practical; (which might end up a bit philisophical too) if you where to give away the tb's and the source for people to freely impliment support and download, then your competitors would be stronger than before, allthough it seems you think it won't make a difference, and if they indeed would be stronger with your 3-7 men tb's then you would have to work harder to make Diep stronger, that competition could benefit Diep in the long run right? >Note i wouldn't mind a few amateur programs, but what happens is the format >spreads, that's what happens. > >Then competitors use it and they do not say 'thank you'. They just use it. Even if that was true, then so what? the analogy "If a tree falls and no one hears it, did it make a sound?" (not sure i got it exactly right to the letter, but the essence should be pretty clear) to me the meaning is multidimensional, but it asks a very interesting question which with a bit of interpeting looks like this: "in order to feel/be rewarded and satisfied we need someone to record/reward our acomplishment?" a goal of mine in my life is to reach a point where i can "chop that tree" and be satisfied/rewarded by the task itself regardless if anyone records it. >They have always superior hardware and huge harddisks. LOL i remember 500 processors being used for, eeeh i forgot the name of the engine... no i remember it was Diep :) >in fact they do not need w/d/l even. They have sugh huge SCSI diskpacks in all >their machines and such huge memory they can keep using nalimov's stuff for >years to go. But the way nalimov is, that is a requirement to use big fast disks in order to keep up right? With your format, they wouldn't need all that big hardware (for that task atleast) and you could stop worrying about it :) >An important reason for me to write my own generator + format is because i want >to generate some 7 men at a small PC and allow my users to freely download all 6 >men in a small size. That is a great news, when do you reckon we (the users) can expect that? >Note that i must generate some 6 men anyway. The 5 versus 1. So 1 side has just >a king. For 5 vs 2 men that is needed. the 5 vs 1 is completely useless for this >world. it is a waste of system time to generate them in some sense. but for a >serious attempt at the 7 mens 5v2 you need to do it. > >Even though those will be probably useless too. Imagine KQQQQKN. > >Who wins that? Kasparov :) >Perhaps there is a few stalemates? > >This egtb is real useless. But i'm sure i'll generate it :) > >Nalimov won't generate those i guess. > >So he might be even able to start way sooner onto the 7 men than i can and cry >victory before me :) > >Most likely i cannot start to generate 7 men until i get a machine from other >sources. Like from university maastricht. Please keep us updated.
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.