TalkChess.com

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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$$