HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
CThinker
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:08 pm
Contact:

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by CThinker » Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:55 am

gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 35059
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by Graham Banks » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:04 am

CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578
That was the thread Lance?
gbanksnz at gmail.com

gaard
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Holland, Michigan
Full name: Martin Wyngaarden

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by gaard » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:07 am

CThinker wrote:
gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
Sounds like a good thread for... *drum roll* _Engine Origins_ *cymbal crash*

It is written somewhere that:
Discussion of the engines should be in whatever forum is
appropriate for the topic. If someone is looking at the code and
has a question/comment/observation about something, the programming
forum is the right place. If someone is looking at similarities or differences
with other programs (such as Rybka) then the EO forum is the right
place.

Damir
Posts: 2471
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:53 pm
Location: Denmark
Full name: Damir Desevac

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by Damir » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:59 am

Mr Rybka Fan Boy Watson,

I think you need to open up your eyes, as it is quite clear you are living in a dream world.. You need to come back to reality, and stop writting bullshit like this.

beram
Posts: 1187
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:11 pm

Re: HOUDINI is ....THE BEST

Post by beram » Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:59 am

on IPONlist of Ingo Bauer and at SCCT of Sedat Canbaz
but you don't have to use it... :lol:

Uri Blass
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by Uri Blass » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:11 am

CThinker wrote:
gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
I believe that Houdini is derivative of Ippolit but
Houdini is stronger than Ippolit so I disagree it is nothing but an Ippolit.

I do not know how much code is changed from Ippolit to Houdini but even if the change is the same as fruit-toga then I am not calling toga nothing but a fruit.

Improving Ippolit by more than 50 elo is clearly an achievement that I respect and I saw no proof that Ippolit is illegal(I consider it as a bigger achievement than improving fruit to toga because it is easier to improve weaker engines).

Uri Blass
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by Uri Blass » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:29 am

Graham Banks wrote:
CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578
That was the thread Lance?
That thread is not about Houdini1.5 but about an older version.

Of course the default assumption should be that Houdini1.5 is based on an older version of Houdini and usually programmers who start from scratch with a new engine also choose a different name for the new engine.

User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:35 am

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by George Tsavdaris » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:52 am

Uri Blass wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578
That was the thread Lance?
That thread is not about Houdini1.5 but about an older version.

Of course the default assumption should be that Houdini1.5 is based on an older version of Houdini and usually programmers who start from scratch with a new engine also choose a different name for the new engine.
Houdini .1.5 is based on an older Houdini version, actually the previous one, since its author says in his webpage that Houdini's 1.5 evaluation and search has been improved and he presents this fact in a way that you can directly imply that he builds and improves Houdini based on the same code and not writing from scratch each time.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....

K I Hyams
Posts: 3584
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:21 pm

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by K I Hyams » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:02 pm

CThinker wrote:
gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
Thank you for that analysis. Those who can’t get there via Graham’s link can use this one (www in place)
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578

Robert’s comment about the make up of Houdini is
“Without many ideas from the excellent open source chess engines Ippolit/Robbolito, Stockfish and Crafty, Houdini would not nearly be as strong as it is now..”

Someone with my level of familiarity with decompiled code, might believe that he has used more than “ideas”, at least in the section that you have published. If that is what you mean by “dishonesty”, then you have convinced me. If, by "dishonesty", you mean illegal use of software, the first step would be to prove that the same code is in Rybka3. If that is the case, I hope that you will show it to us. At that point, the legitimacy of Rybka3 would become an issue.

Whatever your meaning of dishonest, your use, in the post containing your analysis, of the word “cheap” to describe Houdini 1.5 is questionable.

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9773
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: HOUDINI is to be polite another derivative.

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:34 pm

Damir wrote:Mr Rybka Fan Boy Watson,

I think you need to open up your eyes, as it is quite clear you are living in a dream world.. You need to come back to reality, and stop writting bullshit like this.
Totally agreed here Damir....another fast clone my a$$ :lol:
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

Post Reply