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)
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.