Question for Nalimov experts.

[Mincho Georgiev]

First I would like to say, that I never liked endgame tablebases much due to a couple of reasons –
they are large, slow accessed, and most importantly (depending of their type),
because of their probing or generating code, a chess engine could ends up as a non-standalone application, unless the source code gets built-in.
However, recently I was interested by testing Pawny with Nalimov EGTB support.
Unfortunately, considering the Nalimov code’s license, I’m convinced that it’s totally incompatible with GPL. That’s for sure.
An advantage of using Nalimov’s code however is that the source is published,
in spite of it’s being restricted and definitely not opened and I face (and many other GPL chess programmers as well) the following situation:
I cannot use the Nalimov’s source in my program unless I get the Eugene Nalimov’s permission, which is very unlikely, since Pawny is not Rybka
and besides, my impression is that Eugene Nalimov is a person, very difficult to find email contact with.
So excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question, but does the Nalimov code’s license is forbidding the usage without publishing any part of it.
I’m pretty sure it does, but I would like to ask others as well.
I suppose that the above is valid for Andrew Kadatch’s code also (?)
Because let suppose for a second the following: A programmer could build dll that contains the probing code without publishing the source.
If he has the right to do that, without violating the Nalimov’s license, this programmer could use a compiler of his choice, PG optimization,
Windows, Linux builds and so on, Instead of a dll, already built, and that way somehow to compensate for ‘not-being-standalone-anymore’.
I’m sorry if this was discussed many times before, but as I said, I’ve never been interested by that subject till now, sorry for the redundancy.
Many Thanks!

[michiguel]

First I would like to say, that I never liked endgame tablebases much due to a couple of reasons –
they are large, slow accessed, and most importantly (depending of their type),
because of their probing or generating code, a chess engine could ends up as a non-standalone application, unless the source code gets built-in.
However, recently I was interested by testing Pawny with Nalimov EGTB support.
Unfortunately, considering the Nalimov code’s license, I’m convinced that it’s totally incompatible with GPL. That’s for sure.
An advantage of using Nalimov’s code however is that the source is published,
in spite of it’s being restricted and definitely not opened and I face (and many other GPL chess programmers as well) the following situation:
I cannot use the Nalimov’s source in my program unless I get the Eugene Nalimov’s permission, which is very unlikely, since Pawny is not Rybka
and besides, my impression is that Eugene Nalimov is a person, very difficult to find email contact with.
So excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question, but does the Nalimov code’s license is forbidding the usage without publishing any part of it.
I’m pretty sure it does, but I would like to ask others as well.
I suppose that the above is valid for Andrew Kadatch’s code also (?)
Because let suppose for a second the following: A programmer could build dll that contains the probing code without publishing the source.
If he has the right to do that, without violating the Nalimov’s license, this programmer could use a compiler of his choice, PG optimization,
Windows, Linux builds and so on, Instead of a dll, already built, and that way somehow to compensate for ‘not-being-standalone-anymore’.
I’m sorry if this was discussed many times before, but as I said, I’ve never been interested by that subject till now, sorry for the redundancy.
Many Thanks!

You may want to consider this:
http://sites.google.com/site/gaviotache ... blebases-1
http://sites.google.com/site/gaviotache ... e/releases

Miguel

[Matthias Gemuh]

I recommend Gaviota EGTB. Its license has no strings attached.

Matthias.

[JVMerlino]

I second that recommendation. They are very easy to implement.

jm

[alpha123]

Try the Gaviota Tablebases. Much better license and they even have some features Nalimov TBs don't have. Like building bitbases on-the-fly.

(I see some people have already mentioned these. Try the link Miguel Ballicora gave.)

Peter

[Mincho Georgiev]

Thanks!
I will try them, since there is no license limitation, combined with GPL.