It's happening again..

[Peter Skinner]

Hello everyone,

I am really disappointed in the majority of this board in relation to the commercialization of Houdini.

We recently had a decision in the case vs Rybka where people were outraged that Vas took code from other programs and then sold it to people. Now we have the exact same scenario happening, and people once again feel that the money they spend is justified as the program is #1 in many ranking lists.

It is quite obvious to me that morality doesn't enter the equation until a program is no longer the strongest. Since when is strength > morality?

Will people be screaming for blood once something surpasses Houdini? It will happen, and will likely be done by Komodo. (Yes that is a prediction)

We are already starting to see Robert Houdart hit the wall as he really can't improve Houdini anymore. The release of Houdini 2.0 is simply a cash grab, and you are all letting him do it. People have boycotted for low strength increases upon new release, yet +10 is his justification to go commercial.

He further states that 10% goes to Unicef. How do you know that it will indeed get there? This is a man who just started to commercialize a CLONE. It isn't an original work by any means.

It just baffles me that people continually do it, and you, their public allow it to continue.

Disgusted regards,

Peter

[rodolfoleoni]

I'd probably buy Komodo if it has interesting features as persistent hashes and learning system, even if it's not the #1 of the ranking. No top engine has such features, except Houdini...

[Engin]

fully agree ! that is my standing too.

[Houdini]

There we go again, the Houdini haters make their appearance.
Let me give you a single reply, after which I'll make you happy by completely ignoring this thread.

For your info:
- Houdini 1.5a is still freely available on my web page. It remains the second strongest chess engine on the planet, and it's 100% free.
- Going commercial is for me the only way to sustain the development of Houdini. Without this I probably wouldn't even have been able to release Houdini 2.
- Your reaction to my Unicef pledge tells a lot about yourself. When was the last time you showed some generosity?
- As various tests demonstrate Houdini 2 has about 25 Elo improvement. Add to that a host of new features including Persistent Hash, Fischer Random Chess, Strength Limit, Learning and Mate Search.

Thanks for the additional publicity you give to Houdini.

Robert

[Peter Skinner]

There we go again, the Houdini haters make their appearance.

I don't hate Houdini. I despise your method of grabbing a few extra bucks for lap dances.

- Houdini 1.5a is still freely available on my web page. It remains the second strongest chess engine on the planet, and it's 100% free.

Congrats, you have the #2 clone on the planet. How does that feel?

- Going commercial is for me the only way to sustain the development of Houdini. Without this I probably wouldn't even have been able to release Houdini 2.

So now you are able to have your cloning hobby pay you. So taking money for something you didn't originally create is fine with you?

- Your reaction to my Unicef pledge tells a lot about yourself. When was the last time you showed some generosity?

You obviously don't know me at all. I take old computers, refurbish them, and put them in to home of lower income families so that the children have access to the same learning tools they have at school.

I have shown in children that access to social mediums can dispel racism, bigotry and social status.

What have you done lately besides take money for something you clone?

- As various tests demonstrate Houdini 2 has about 25 Elo improvement. Add to that a host of new features including Persistent Hash, Fischer Random Chess, Strength Limit, Learning and Mate Search.

Great you added features...

Peter

[Don]

Hello everyone,

I am really disappointed in the majority of this board in relation to the commercialization of Houdini.

We recently had a decision in the case vs Rybka where people were outraged that Vas took code from other programs and then sold it to people. Now we have the exact same scenario happening, and people once again feel that the money they spend is justified as the program is #1 in many ranking lists.

It is quite obvious to me that morality doesn't enter the equation until a program is no longer the strongest. Since when is strength > morality?

Will people be screaming for blood once something surpasses Houdini? It will happen, and will likely be done by Komodo. (Yes that is a prediction)

We are already starting to see Robert Houdart hit the wall as he really can't improve Houdini anymore. The release of Houdini 2.0 is simply a cash grab, and you are all letting him do it. People have boycotted for low strength increases upon new release, yet +10 is his justification to go commercial.

He further states that 10% goes to Unicef. How do you know that it will indeed get there? This is a man who just started to commercialize a CLONE. It isn't an original work by any means.

I feel the same way you do about all of this.

The Unicef thing is really annoying to me because if someone wants to buy Houdini he is essentially forced to make a donation to a cause that Robert Houdart has chose for him.

The guy is deceptive. Early on it was his intent to "release the source code" but that was a smokescreen, he obviously didn't do that. When it was discovered that Houdini communicates with some web site, he did not give a direct answer, he just said that nothing sinister was going on (but not denying nor admitting that Houdini is passing SOMETHING to a server somewhere.) Now the Unicef stuff follows a similar pattern, a smokescreen to make it appear that Houdart is a "good guy." He might actually be giving the 10% to Unicef to asuage his own conscience on this, people are complicated and who knows? The Unicef stuff is not verifiable naturally.

It just baffles me that people continually do it, and you, their public allow it to continue.

Disgusted regards,

Peter

[Uri Blass]

I did not buy houdini but I have no problem with the fact that Robert Houdart
sell it.

If somebody create a new car and sell it then he does not need to reinvent the wheel and the fact that the car has non original parts is not a problem.

I do not know if Robert Houdart is using some code illegally but even if he does it then it is not the problem of the buyers and the only people who have the moral right to complain against him are the people who wrote the relevant code.

[zullil]

Well maybe I'm just a sucker, but Mr. Houdart's always seemed (to me) to be a decent fellow. I have no doubt that the funds he has promised to donate to UNICEF will be denoted to UNICEF. And I have no reason to think that he's making the donation for a reason other than helping children.

As the regulars know, I don't use Houdini, because I have ethical concerns about its origins. (I've never used Rybka either.) Many times I urged Robert to release the source code, simply because it seemed the right thing to do. He chose not to do so.

To me this is too bad, because whatever its origins, clearly Robert has added a lot to the engine.

Just my 2¢.

[Albert Silver]

I did not buy houdini but I have no problem with the fact that Robert Houdart
sell it.

If somebody create a new car and sell it then he does not need to reinvent the wheel and the fact that the car has non original parts is not a problem.

I do not know if Robert Houdart is using some code illegally but even if he does it then it is not the problem of the buyers and the only people who have the moral right to complain against him are the people who wrote the relevant code.

That is not entirely correct. If you buy stolen goods unknowingly, you are of course exonerated of any moral responsibility, but if you know they are stolen, and someone is being ripped off, and still buy it, then you have indeed made a moral (or immoral) decision.

Bear in mind, I am addressing your argument, and am not making any pronouncement on Houdini. I think the whole IPPO issue is a very complex one to say the least. One thing is certain, one cannot condemn Rybka but not Houdini or other IPPOs. That would be utter hypocrisy.

[tomgdrums]

I did not buy houdini but I have no problem with the fact that Robert Houdart
sell it.

If somebody create a new car and sell it then he does not need to reinvent the wheel and the fact that the car has non original parts is not a problem.

I do not know if Robert Houdart is using some code illegally but even if he does it then it is not the problem of the buyers and the only people who have the moral right to complain against him are the people who wrote the relevant code.

That is not entirely correct. If you buy stolen goods unknowingly, you are of course exonerated of any moral responsibility, but if you know they are stolen, and someone is being ripped off, and still buy it, then you have indeed made a moral (or immoral) decision.

Bear in mind, I am addressing your argument, and am not making any pronouncement on Houdini. I think the whole IPPO issue is a very complex one to say the least. One thing is certain, one cannot condemn Rybka but not Houdini or other IPPOs. That would be utter hypocrisy.

But unlike Rybka there has yet to be "proof" against Houdini.

And unlike Vas, Houdart has defended himself in this forum.