Question for Nalimov experts.

Discussion of chess software programming and technical issues.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
Mincho Georgiev
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Question for Nalimov experts.

Post by Mincho Georgiev » Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:27 pm

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!

User avatar
michiguel
Posts: 6386
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Question for Nalimov explerts.

Post by michiguel » Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:56 pm

Mincho Georgiev wrote: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

User avatar
Matthias Gemuh
Posts: 3238
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:10 am
Contact:

Re: Question for Nalimov explerts.

Post by Matthias Gemuh » Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:44 pm

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

Matthias.
My engine was quite strong till I added knowledge to it.
http://www.chess.hylogic.de

User avatar
JVMerlino
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: Question for Nalimov explerts.

Post by JVMerlino » Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:52 pm

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

jm

alpha123
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:13 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Question for Nalimov experts.

Post by alpha123 » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:21 am

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
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:44 pm
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Re: Question for Nalimov experts.

Post by Mincho Georgiev » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:03 am

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

Post Reply