Lack of up-to-date engines

[Marek Soszynski]

Arasan version 10.0 and higher supports UCI, SMP, 64-bit, and Nalimov tablebases.

Unfortunately, Arasan doesn't support 'ignore move' (part of the UCI protocol) essential for IDeA.

[michiguel]

I just want to bemoan the lack of up-to-date engines with the latest features.

How many current engines are multi-processor, 64-bit, fully UCI-compliant (such that they can be used for IDeA in Aquarium) and use Nalimov tablebases?

I know of only four: Rybka, Naum, Shredder, and StockFish.

Four!

Perhaps one of the Togas, but which?

Any others?

HIARCS - not currently 64-bit
Onno - not yet mp
Zappa, Junior - not fully UCI
Fritz, Crafty - opposed to UCI

Perhaps you are not using a full featured GUI that supports Winboard
What is IDeA anyway?

I do not consider an engine that supports Nalimov a point to consider it to be "full featured". IMO, a full featured engine would have their _own_ tablebases as well as their _own_ book processing, creation, and usage.

Miguel

[michiguel]

I think lack of distance to mate is a significant limitation, although how important it is in practice is not clear.

My understanding is Bruce Moreland did a cleanroom implementation of tablebase code for Ferret that didn't depend on Nalimov's code. So that's not impossible but it would be a difficult task.

--Jon

Gaviota is running now with their own tablebases. It took me at least 3-4 months of my limited time to write the code and debug it. You also need to write tools to validate and check the whole thing, benchmarks etc. I also wrote a move generator specialized for these endgames not to run the whole thing like a snail. I had to write a cache system too. At the end, I figured that compressing them was not worth the effort but a good cache system is critical.

I am not sure it pays off in terms of ELO, but it gave plenty satisfaction when I finished.

Miguel

[Dirt]

Is there anyone who knows the price for a Nalimov license?

I've never heard that he charges for it, but I don't know for sure that he doesn't. The main issue seems to be that Dr. Nalimov would have to give up some control over his code to allow it in GPL applications.

[Vinvin]

How many current engines are multi-processor, 64-bit, fully UCI-compliant (such that they can be used for IDeA in Aquarium) and use Nalimov tablebases?

You should add "and support all underpromotions !"

Example : here Rybka finds only a draw, Hiarcs and Stockfish show the win !

[d]5Q2/PP1B1P2/1P6/2B5/1p1P4/7p/nPR1bp1P/3k3K w - -

[rainhaus]

Is there anyone who knows the price for a Nalimov license?

I've never heard that he charges for it, but I don't know for sure that he doesn't. The main issue seems to be that Dr. Nalimov would have to give up some control over his code to allow it in GPL applications.

Oh horror, licensing agreemenst are not my stuff. Thanks.

[tano-urayoan]

I just want to bemoan the lack of up-to-date engines with the latest features.

How many current engines are multi-processor, 64-bit, fully UCI-compliant (such that they can be used for IDeA in Aquarium) and use Nalimov tablebases?

I know of only four: Rybka, Naum, Shredder, and StockFish.

Four!

Perhaps one of the Togas, but which?

Any others?

HIARCS - not currently 64-bit
Onno - not yet mp
Zappa, Junior - not fully UCI
Fritz, Crafty - opposed to UCI

This means Winboard engines are useless?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

I think lack of distance to mate is a significant limitation, although how important it is in practice is not clear.

My understanding is Bruce Moreland did a cleanroom implementation of tablebase code for Ferret that didn't depend on Nalimov's code. So that's not impossible but it would be a difficult task.

--Jon

Writing your own egtb code and generator is trivial. (Compared to writing a strong chess engine, for example)

The only reason why we don't have more innovation in this field is that the WCCC rules allow an exception for the Nalimov code.

[Dann Corbit]

Oh dear. I was hoping that the list of fully-featured engines would increase, but with with Stockfish's removal it's down to three. One of which, Naum, is no longer in full-time development.

I would say that including Nalimov tablebases as a requirement for a "fully-featured engine" is rather unfair, as a significant fraction of all engines are simply not allowed to use them.

Statistically speaking, the four careful experiments that I have seen showed a net strength increase of zero for tablebase files.

They can make the engines play prettier chess, though, if done right.

[Dann Corbit]

I just want to bemoan the lack of up-to-date engines with the latest features.

How many current engines are multi-processor, 64-bit, fully UCI-compliant (such that they can be used for IDeA in Aquarium) and use Nalimov tablebases?

I know of only four: Rybka, Naum, Shredder, and StockFish.

Four!

Perhaps one of the Togas, but which?

Any others?

HIARCS - not currently 64-bit
Onno - not yet mp
Zappa, Junior - not fully UCI
Fritz, Crafty - opposed to UCI

Perhaps you are not using a full featured GUI that supports Winboard
What is IDeA anyway?

I do not consider an engine that supports Nalimov a point to consider it to be "full featured". IMO, a full featured engine would have their _own_ tablebases as well as their _own_ book processing, creation, and usage.

Miguel

Imagine, if you will, 5000 chess engines (I have more than that), each with a full complement of 7 man tablebase files.

I think I'll have to pulverize the entire mantle of the earth to get enough silicon and iron oxide.

*MY* preference would be a single, open source, BSD licensed tablebase format that every sensible engine on earth would use. We would all then chuck the engines that used proprietary formats such as 'Nalimov' and 'Feg' etc.

Now, if you want to roll your own, that's great. But think of the impact on end users if you ever intend to distribute your tool set.