The programmers of Stockfish used GPL. It would be interesting which ideas the programmer of Houdini used. Same for Craftry. I don't speaking from which ideas the programmers processing. Could be interesting too, but I can understand if programmers hold own ideas secret. That's not my intention.
I think the programmer of Houdini used nothing from Stockfish and Crafty in the first version if I read what the Thinker programmer wrote. So why Robert Houdert is speaking from Crafty and Stockfish?
I can't understand that programmers don't give this easy information I asked on more times. After all I read the most is ipp fam. sources, so why the programmer of Houdini is speaking from Stockfish and Crafty?
From the absolutley prestige developer engines we have and so many others learn.
BTW
Yes the good old winboard times will never come back. Each new engine we celebrate in the past and all of the amateurs are very proud of his own engines and celebrate with us all the nice material
Not easy in times today to sellect out all the clones which are available. I like different chess programs and the work so many programmers do it for us so many years. I don't like persons which used sources from others and jump from 0 to 1 without 1% own work. Without any proof I don't believe that 1% own work are in "closed" clones. Perhaps new UCI options and so one but this sources can be found in x other engines with free available sources.
Roger Brown wrote:I think I would be reluctant to share if the person making the demand said that the strength of the program had nothing to do with my efforts.
You've very well expressed my thoughts here.
The tone of Frank's repeated inquiries is so disrespectful that I'm not even making an attempt to reply.
When somebody calls me a liar it's the end of the discussion for me.
Roger Brown wrote:I think I would be reluctant to share if the person making the demand said that the strength of the program had nothing to do with my efforts.
You've very well expressed my thoughts here.
The tone of Frank's repeated inquiries is so disrespectful that I'm not even making an attempt to reply.
When somebody calls me a liar it's the end of the discussion for me.
Robert
If you tell people that you did not use the ipp family code copy/paste style (which you did) you are a liar.
I provided more than enough proof in here that you directly copied the code a couple months ago. Everyone in general ignored that. They thought it was better to have long long threads
Now Alex Lobanov has shown his own proof here in this thread,
I'd stick to watching stars if I were you. This could get pretty scary especially when the Russians are disassembling it.
You did lie before. However God loves a trier so let's try one last time.....
Did you write Houdini from the ground up (as you said, only using ideas) or did you take one of the Ippolit family and modify it?
Now would be the time to come clean, because I fancy you will get ripped apart by them if you don't. Take this good advice. It is well meant.
could you see on how many positions (which are important) Houdini was changed.
Thinking on the thread from Thinker programmer.
Best
Frank
Hello Frank Quisinsky,
Let me see if I understand you clearly:
You are advocating that someone disassemble a closed source engine to provide you with answers.
Soooooo...where does that stop exactly?
Does this need to know only apply to engines which you are certain are derivatives? Or can any commercial program now be ripped apart?
I find that request odd coming from you.
I would prefer open to closed source BUT one is free not to download and use the thing.
Requesting disassembly be done and the results published seems a dangerous road to tread on.
Later.
I think here things are a bit different. Houdini is not the "classic closed source." It is a clearly plagiarized program that has been modified very slightly, which does not exactly meet any existing standard of "new engine." I don't get the idea of copying someone's source, making a few changes, then hiding the modified source and making waves about a "new engine." One of those "things that make you go hmmm." Ethically, _any_ engine based on ip* should be open-source since ip* is open-source. Of course, not everyone is ethical...
could you see on how many positions (which are important) Houdini was changed.
Thinking on the thread from Thinker programmer.
Best
Frank
Hello Frank Quisinsky,
Let me see if I understand you clearly:
You are advocating that someone disassemble a closed source engine to provide you with answers.
Soooooo...where does that stop exactly?
Does this need to know only apply to engines which you are certain are derivatives? Or can any commercial program now be ripped apart?
I find that request odd coming from you.
I would prefer open to closed source BUT one is free not to download and use the thing.
Requesting disassembly be done and the results published seems a dangerous road to tread on.
Later.
I think here things are a bit different. Houdini is not the "classic closed source." It is a clearly plagiarized program that has been modified very slightly, which does not exactly meet any existing standard of "new engine." I don't get the idea of copying someone's source, making a few changes, then hiding the modified source and making waves about a "new engine." One of those "things that make you go hmmm." Ethically, _any_ engine based on ip* should be open-source since ip* is open-source. Of course, not everyone is ethical...
