a Telltale position

[Don]

I know you are watching Robert. Are you still trying to say that you did not use Robbolito as the code base for Houdini?

These are not similar ideas everyone can see here in these positions.

These two engines use the SAME code base.

Thats a FACT.

[d]4q1kr/p6p/1prQPppB/4n3/4P3/2P5/PP2B2P/R5K1 w - - 0 1

RobboLito 0085g3 x32:
1/3 00:00 53 0 -5.09 Qxc6 Qxc6
1/7 00:00 82 0 -4.28 Qf8+ Qxf8 Bxf8 Kxf8
1/7 00:00 106 0 -0.77 Qd5 Rxe6
1/7 00:00 124 0 -0.11 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7
2/7 00:00 218 0 -0.11 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7
3/11 00:00 616 0 -0.32 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Qe7
4/16 00:00 1,567 0 -0.58 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Nf7 Be3 Rxe4
5/16 00:00 2,158 0 -0.58 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Nf7 Be3 Rxe4
6/17 00:00 4,628 0 -0.87 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Nf7 Bd2 Rxe4 Bf3


Houdini_w32_2CPU:
1/3 00:00 53 0 -5.10 Qxc6 Qxc6
1/7 00:00 82 0 -4.26 Qf8+ Qxf8 Bxf8 Kxf8
1/7 00:00 105 0 -0.49 Qd5 Rxe6
1/7 00:00 121 0 -0.06 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7
2/7 00:00 216 0 -0.06 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7
3/11 00:00 632 0 -0.20 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Qe7
4/14 00:00 1,569 0 -0.36 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Nf7 Be3 Rxe4
5/14 00:00 2,212 0 -0.36 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Nf7 Be3 Rxe4
6/16 00:00 4,228 0 -0.57 Qa3 Rxe6 Qxa7 Nf7 Bd2 Rxe4 Bf3

The part of the program that requires the most effort to change, is the evaluation function. You can get immediate feedback making changes to the search, but the evaluation is tedious and hard and incremental. The dead giveaway is the remarkably similar style of the two programs and in this case even the scores. You really cannot make drastic changes to the evaluation function without weakening it significantly, unless you put in the time - weeks and months of hard work.

[Don]

Just thought I'd also say that these are not our positions. These are the positions that all you, the members, have posted over the past few weeks.

That includes both supporters of this Robbolito derivative and non-supporters of it.

It gave me a lovely warm feeling to know that those supporters would hang their hero by their own actions......

You are naive if you think Houdarts worshipper are going to be swayed by actual evidence and proof.

You might as well try to convince Daniel Shenton that the earth is not flat.

But then thats just me.......



Chris

[Christopher Conkie]

Just thought I'd also say that these are not our positions. These are the positions that all you, the members, have posted over the past few weeks.

That includes both supporters of this Robbolito derivative and non-supporters of it.

It gave me a lovely warm feeling to know that those supporters would hang their hero by their own actions......

You are naive if you think Houdarts worshipper are going to be swayed by actual evidence and proof.

You might as well try to convince Daniel Shenton that the earth is not flat.

But then thats just me.......



Chris

I don't think they can refute the proof that it is a derivative and not original Don. It is a bit too "in their faces" for that and it would be a very foolish person to try to say its anything other than Robbolito in disguise.

More pertinent to say is that I don't think they will stop using it (but that was not my objective).



Chris

[Don]

As long as he is not charging any money for his improved Robbo open source based engine I am not complaining, as well as all others who are using it, and there are many...

I don't have a problem with it's existence but I don't believe it should be getting recognition as if were an original program.

[bob]

It is a bit sad and disturbing, because Robert Houdart usually appears like a nice, knowledgeable and fairly levelheaded person...

A lot of internet people appear that way. But there's no way to know what is "behind the curtain" without looking...

New programs jumping to the top of the list just don't happen overnight.

[Don]

Just thought I'd also say that these are not our positions. These are the positions that all you, the members, have posted over the past few weeks.

That includes both supporters of this Robbolito derivative and non-supporters of it.

It gave me a lovely warm feeling to know that those supporters would hang their hero by their own actions......

You are naive if you think Houdarts worshipper are going to be swayed by actual evidence and proof.

You might as well try to convince Daniel Shenton that the earth is not flat.

But then thats just me.......



Chris

I don't think they can refute the proof that it is a derivative and not original Don. It is a bit too "in their faces" for that and it would be a very foolish person to try to say its anything other than Robbolito in disguise.

More pertinent to say is that I don't think they will stop using it (but that was not my objective).

Yes of course. I agree with you.

Have you noticed how the argument evolves over time? It goes something like this:

1. Vehement denial and bogus evidence that it cannot possibly be a clone.

Then as the evidence that it IS a clone becomes stronger ....

2. Assertions that Rybka is a clone of Fruit (presumably this is some kind of excuse)

Then as the evidence becomes overwhelming

3. Justifications and excuses for why it doesn't matter to them anyway.


You can see we have progressed to phase 3 now.


These arguments overlap to some degree, but it's pretty telling to me that they just didn't go right to step 3. If there were honest they would just go there immediately and admit that they didn't care anyway. This shows that for some people, they prefer to believe it cannot possibly be a derivative, but they'll take what they can get. It's like finding out the job you took is not what you thought it would be, but it's not bad enough to quit.

I sometimes watch crime shows of actual cases and it works a lot like this with guilty people too. First they claim there were never at the crime scene (or never knew the victim) and when that lie is exposed another lie is told that admits a little bit more and so on. "Ok, I was there, but I was trying to HELP .... I was afraid you would try to pin the murder on me ... etc." In many cases the guilty part NEVER admits to the murder even after it's proved.

Chris

[Tom Barrister]

Since nobody volunteered to run a test of the same positions on Rybka 1.0 beta and the version of Fruit that it allegedly comes from (2.2?), I'll assume that Rybka 1.0 beta was a direct clone of that version of Fruit, rewritten for better technologies or whatever.

Now supposedly, it's been proven that Houdini is largely taken from Robbolito (which I suppose is similar to, a subset of, or a superset to the Ippolit series), which is largely taken from a version of Rybka (2.3.2?). That would indirectly assume that Houdini has some base in Rybka.

So where does that leave us?

It looks like everybody is guilty of chicanery. Mr. Rajlich, Mr. Houdart, those who had a hand in Robbolito/Ippolit, those who created engines from Robbolito/Ippolit, and those who used the Robbolito/Ippolit series to enhance their engines.

I wouldn't doubt that one/some/all of the creators of Naum, Shredder, Fritz, Zappa, and the other commercial closed-source engines who are still trying to improve their products, are all helping themselves to whatever Robbolito (meaning Rybka) has to offer them. So those who are doing so are also guilty.

Since I haven't seen Stockfish accused of doing any of these bad things, I hereby proclaim it the King of computer chess, as all others are disqualified for being illegitimate descendants of Fabien Letouzey's brainchild: Fruit.

All Hail King Stockfish!

[michiguel]

Since nobody volunteered to run a test of the same positions on Rybka 1.0 beta and the version of Fruit that it allegedly comes from (2.2?), I'll assume that Rybka 1.0 beta was a direct clone of that version of Fruit, rewritten for better technologies or whatever.

Yes, thousands of positions have been run and shown to be considerably different. This is expected, since, whatever has happened, Rybka uses a material table that gives a very specific flavor to the evaluation. R1 is not that close to fruit in terms of move selection.

Miguel

Now supposedly, it's been proven that Houdini is largely taken from Robbolito (which I suppose is similar to, a subset of, or a superset to the Ippolit series), which is largely taken from a version of Rybka (2.3.2?). That would indirectly assume that Houdini has some base in Rybka.

So where does that leave us?

It looks like everybody is guilty of chicanery. Mr. Rajlich, Mr. Houdart, those who had a hand in Robbolito/Ippolit, those who created engines from Robbolito/Ippolit, and those who used the Robbolito/Ippolit series to enhance their engines.

I wouldn't doubt that one/some/all of the creators of Naum, Shredder, Fritz, Zappa, and the other commercial closed-source engines who are still trying to improve their products, are all helping themselves to whatever Robbolito (meaning Rybka) has to offer them. So those who are doing so are also guilty.

Since I haven't seen Stockfish accused of doing any of these bad things, I hereby proclaim it the King of computer chess, as all others are disqualified for being illegitimate descendants of Fabien Letouzey's brainchild: Fruit.

All Hail King Stockfish!

[Cubeman]

Please help me to understand if Ippolit is actually based on Rybka? So far I have not heard any compelling evidence, only Vas making a statement along those lines.I believe that Houdini is based on Ippolit, but am unsure if that also implies based on Rybka.

[michiguel]

Just thought I'd also say that these are not our positions. These are the positions that all you, the members, have posted over the past few weeks.

That includes both supporters of this Robbolito derivative and non-supporters of it.

It gave me a lovely warm feeling to know that those supporters would hang their hero by their own actions......

You are naive if you think Houdarts worshipper are going to be swayed by actual evidence and proof.

You might as well try to convince Daniel Shenton that the earth is not flat.

But then thats just me.......



Chris

I don't think they can refute the proof that it is a derivative and not original Don. It is a bit too "in their faces" for that and it would be a very foolish person to try to say its anything other than Robbolito in disguise.

More pertinent to say is that I don't think they will stop using it (but that was not my objective).

Yes of course. I agree with you.

Have you noticed how the argument evolves over time? It goes something like this:

1. Vehement denial and bogus evidence that it cannot possibly be a clone.

Then as the evidence that it IS a clone becomes stronger ....

2. Assertions that Rybka is a clone of Fruit (presumably this is some kind of excuse)

Then as the evidence becomes overwhelming

3. Justifications and excuses for why it doesn't matter to them anyway.


You can see we have progressed to phase 3 now.

No, there is a phase 4. "There is no original engine".

Miguel

These arguments overlap to some degree, but it's pretty telling to me that they just didn't go right to step 3. If there were honest they would just go there immediately and admit that they didn't care anyway. This shows that for some people, they prefer to believe it cannot possibly be a derivative, but they'll take what they can get. It's like finding out the job you took is not what you thought it would be, but it's not bad enough to quit.

I sometimes watch crime shows of actual cases and it works a lot like this with guilty people too. First they claim there were never at the crime scene (or never knew the victim) and when that lie is exposed another lie is told that admits a little bit more and so on. "Ok, I was there, but I was trying to HELP .... I was afraid you would try to pin the murder on me ... etc." In many cases the guilty part NEVER admits to the murder even after it's proved.

Chris