POLL: What is more important?

[xshat]

That is not what I said. They will be clones in the respect that they follow the outlines for perfect play to always win in specific situations.

There are no "outlines for perfect play." In a lost position, 32TBs will tell you that every move of yours loses. Where is your outline now?

If we had an outline for perfect play we wouldn't need tablebases.

Not yet, but when chess is solved there will be outlines for perfect play. It is not my outline but a part of chess to be discovered in time.

[Marek]

32men tablebases would not work with r4 because it is not programmed to have solved chess, which includes coding outside of the 32men bases.

Who said anything about Rybka 4 using 32TBs?

So solving chess involves "coding outside of the 32men bases"? Good. You're beginning to understand.

[Marek]

That is not what I said. They will be clones in the respect that they follow the outlines for perfect play to always win in specific situations.

There are no "outlines for perfect play." In a lost position, 32TBs will tell you that every move of yours loses. Where is your outline now?

If we had an outline for perfect play we wouldn't need tablebases.

Not yet, but when chess is solved there will be outlines for perfect play. It is not my outline but a part of chess to be discovered in time.

Yes! Finally you agree that 32TBs aren't the complete solution. We got there in the end. Well done to all of us.

[xshat]

32men tablebases would not work with r4 because it is not programmed to have solved chess, which includes coding outside of the 32men bases.

Who said anything about Rybka 4 using 32TBs?

So solving chess involves "coding outside of the 32men bases"? Good. You're beginning to understand.

You mentioned r4 and 32tbs.

Solving chess includes 32men bases.

[Marek]

32men tablebases would not work with r4 because it is not programmed to have solved chess, which includes coding outside of the 32men bases.

Who said anything about Rybka 4 using 32TBs?

So solving chess involves "coding outside of the 32men bases"? Good. You're beginning to understand.

You mentioned r4 and 32tbs.

Solving chess includes 32men bases.

My exact words were, "Let Rybka 4 be one of the participants, but without the 32TBs that some of the others will have."

Yes, solving chess will involve 32TBs, very probably. I suppose it's possible to have a strategy-based solution rather than a data-based solution, but I shan't argue for that here.

However, it will be a strategy-based solution that will guide a perfect engine when it is playing a losing or drawn position.

And yet a paradox remains. What turns out to be the right strategy depends on the precise circumstances. Earlier I had written:

Who will win the series of grand tourneys? [...] It will be an engine that scores best against the likes of Rybka. It will be the programmer of a perfect engine who, in a necessary addition to the 32TBs, has happened on the best algorithm to play a lost or drawn position in these circumstances.

Note the careful clause, "in these circumstances." In different circumstances, for example if it isn't Rybka but Houdini that is an imperfect opponent, the best strategy (as proved in practice) may be subtly different. Engines can't know their opponents beforehand; so how can they know what the best strategy is in non-winning positions?

In other words, there isn't a perfect strategy after all.

[xshat]

32men tablebases would not work with r4 because it is not programmed to have solved chess, which includes coding outside of the 32men bases.

Who said anything about Rybka 4 using 32TBs?

So solving chess involves "coding outside of the 32men bases"? Good. You're beginning to understand.

You mentioned r4 and 32tbs.

Solving chess includes 32men bases.

My exact words were, "Let Rybka 4 be one of the participants, but without the 32TBs that some of the others will have."

Yes, solving chess will involve 32TBs, very probably. I suppose it's possible to have a strategy-based solution rather than a data-based solution, but I shan't argue for that here.

However, it will be a strategy-based solution that will guide a perfect engine when it is playing a losing or drawn position.

And yet a paradox remains. What turns out to be the right strategy depends on the precise circumstances. Earlier I had written:

Who will win the series of grand tourneys? [...] It will be an engine that scores best against the likes of Rybka. It will be the programmer of a perfect engine who, in a necessary addition to the 32TBs, has happened on the best algorithm to play a lost or drawn position in these circumstances.

Note the careful clause, "in these circumstances." In different circumstances, for example if it isn't Rybka but Houdini that is an imperfect opponent, the best strategy (as proved in practice) may be subtly different. Engines can't know their opponents beforehand; so how can they know what the best strategy is in non-winning positions?

In other words, there isn't a perfect strategy after all.

Rybka 4 does not play perfect chess so it would not play good at all in that situation.

There isn't a perfect strategy yet because chess hasn't been solved to provide one.

[Marek]

32men tablebases would not work with r4 because it is not programmed to have solved chess, which includes coding outside of the 32men bases.

Who said anything about Rybka 4 using 32TBs?

So solving chess involves "coding outside of the 32men bases"? Good. You're beginning to understand.

You mentioned r4 and 32tbs.

Solving chess includes 32men bases.

My exact words were, "Let Rybka 4 be one of the participants, but without the 32TBs that some of the others will have."

Yes, solving chess will involve 32TBs, very probably. I suppose it's possible to have a strategy-based solution rather than a data-based solution, but I shan't argue for that here.

However, it will be a strategy-based solution that will guide a perfect engine when it is playing a losing or drawn position.

And yet a paradox remains. What turns out to be the right strategy depends on the precise circumstances. Earlier I had written:

Who will win the series of grand tourneys? [...] It will be an engine that scores best against the likes of Rybka. It will be the programmer of a perfect engine who, in a necessary addition to the 32TBs, has happened on the best algorithm to play a lost or drawn position in these circumstances.

Note the careful clause, "in these circumstances." In different circumstances, for example if it isn't Rybka but Houdini that is an imperfect opponent, the best strategy (as proved in practice) may be subtly different. Engines can't know their opponents beforehand; so how can they know what the best strategy is in non-winning positions?

In other words, there isn't a perfect strategy after all.

Rybka 4 does not play perfect chess so it would not play good at all in that situation.

There isn't a perfect strategy yet because chess hasn't been solved to provide one.

It's true that Rybka 4 does not play perfect chess, but it doesn't need to play perfectly to draw a won position, which would count as a success against an engine that is little more than a 32TBs-reader.

There will never be a perfect strategy because it depends on the opposition. The optimal strategy in a losing or drawn position depends on the opposition (which an engine can't know, and anyway new engine versions could appear at any time). How best to play Rybka in a losing position may differ in practice from how to play Houdini or whoever. Remember when I was talking about many thousands of games in thousands of tourneys? All it needs is for one so-called perfect engine to allow one more draw (in a lost position) than another so-called perfect engine, and we have a winner in that respect... But the tourneys need never stop. And if the next tourney has a new, strongish engine (but without 32TBs) then the optimal strategy in non-winning positions against the new engine may turn out to be different. And a strategy that needs changing cannot be called perfect.

[Charles]

Why the heck would anyone want this:

Working towards creating stronger engines -- BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY?

This is absolute hogwash. So we should all steal commercial engines code put it on the web so we can ALL work create a stronger engine?

No way.. This is marxist gibberish!

There is a demand for stronger engines, we want stronger engines, and a few of us will work for it. However, we don't endorse lying, cheating , *killing* for it.

So Determining and defining which engines are clones, derivatives, or completely original is the only logical and moral choice

So you think we should not work on creating stronger engines because it's hogwash?

Your confusing Marxism with chess development, and taking what I mentioned to the extreme. I do not endorse lying cheating and killing in the name of chess.

In my opinion it is more logical for good programmers to work together rather than against each other, and that's all I stated. I never said we should embrace marxism no matter what the costs are.

No, your poll is hogwash..

Its obvious that most would like to see stronger engines. I got carried away with the politics analogy but essentially Marxism is about the "greater good" for society at the expense of individual liberty.
You poll seems to suggest Working towards creating stronger engines is all that matters regardless of whether original code is stolen. If you look at my other posts on this thread, I am agreeing that getting strong engines is good and that even giving credit to authors who "borrow" for developing stronger engines is ok.

I draw the line though in proclaiming person X from being the greatest just because he/she changed code from someone else to produce a slightly better engine.
The 2 choices don't need to be mutually exclusive which is why I assumed you meant Working towards creating stronger engines BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.



btw -- programmers don't always work well together. Many good programmers work even better by themselves. Besides competition spurs development better than cooperation.



I say give credit where credit is due but don't immortalize someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

[xshat]

32men tablebases would not work with r4 because it is not programmed to have solved chess, which includes coding outside of the 32men bases.

Who said anything about Rybka 4 using 32TBs?

So solving chess involves "coding outside of the 32men bases"? Good. You're beginning to understand.

You mentioned r4 and 32tbs.

Solving chess includes 32men bases.

My exact words were, "Let Rybka 4 be one of the participants, but without the 32TBs that some of the others will have."

Yes, solving chess will involve 32TBs, very probably. I suppose it's possible to have a strategy-based solution rather than a data-based solution, but I shan't argue for that here.

However, it will be a strategy-based solution that will guide a perfect engine when it is playing a losing or drawn position.

And yet a paradox remains. What turns out to be the right strategy depends on the precise circumstances. Earlier I had written:

Who will win the series of grand tourneys? [...] It will be an engine that scores best against the likes of Rybka. It will be the programmer of a perfect engine who, in a necessary addition to the 32TBs, has happened on the best algorithm to play a lost or drawn position in these circumstances.

Note the careful clause, "in these circumstances." In different circumstances, for example if it isn't Rybka but Houdini that is an imperfect opponent, the best strategy (as proved in practice) may be subtly different. Engines can't know their opponents beforehand; so how can they know what the best strategy is in non-winning positions?

In other words, there isn't a perfect strategy after all.

Rybka 4 does not play perfect chess so it would not play good at all in that situation.

There isn't a perfect strategy yet because chess hasn't been solved to provide one.

It's true that Rybka 4 does not play perfect chess, but it doesn't need to play perfectly to draw a won position, which would count as a success against an engine that is little more than a 32TBs-reader.

There will never be a perfect strategy because it depends on the opposition. The optimal strategy in a losing or drawn position depends on the opposition (which an engine can't know, and anyway new engine versions could appear at any time). How best to play Rybka in a losing position may differ in practice from how to play Houdini or whoever. Remember when I was talking about many thousands of games in thousands of tourneys? All it needs is for one so-called perfect engine to allow one more draw (in a lost position) than another so-called perfect engine, and we have a winner in that respect... But the tourneys need never stop. And if the next tourney has a new, strongish engine (but without 32TBs) then the optimal strategy in non-winning positions against the new engine may turn out to be different. And a strategy that needs changing cannot be called perfect.

A perfect strategy is one in which chess is solved and lays out all the moves to make in order to win during positions.

[xshat]

Why the heck would anyone want this:

Working towards creating stronger engines -- BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY?

This is absolute hogwash. So we should all steal commercial engines code put it on the web so we can ALL work create a stronger engine?

No way.. This is marxist gibberish!

There is a demand for stronger engines, we want stronger engines, and a few of us will work for it. However, we don't endorse lying, cheating , *killing* for it.

So Determining and defining which engines are clones, derivatives, or completely original is the only logical and moral choice

So you think we should not work on creating stronger engines because it's hogwash?

Your confusing Marxism with chess development, and taking what I mentioned to the extreme. I do not endorse lying cheating and killing in the name of chess.

In my opinion it is more logical for good programmers to work together rather than against each other, and that's all I stated. I never said we should embrace marxism no matter what the costs are.

No, your poll is hogwash..

Its obvious that most would like to see stronger engines. I got carried away with the politics analogy but essentially Marxism is about the "greater good" for society at the expense of individual liberty.
You poll seems to suggest Working towards creating stronger engines is all that matters regardless of whether original code is stolen. If you look at my other posts on this thread, I am agreeing that getting strong engines is good and that even giving credit to authors who "borrow" for developing stronger engines is ok.

I draw the line though in proclaiming person X from being the greatest just because he/she changed code from someone else to produce a slightly better engine.
The 2 choices don't need to be mutually exclusive which is why I assumed you meant Working towards creating stronger engines BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.



btw -- programmers don't always work well together. Many good programmers work even better by themselves. Besides competition spurs development better than cooperation.



I say give credit where credit is due but don't immortalize someone who is fundamentally dishonest.

Your analogies are hogwash. My poll does not suggest that stolen code is irrelevant, that is an assumption you created, which is erroneous as I already explained.