The silence of Robert Houdart
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:21 am
Is the silence of Robert Houdart means it has sold Houdini
ChessBase or is working hard on version 2.0?
ChessBase or is working hard on version 2.0?
Not much from Robert lately. He may be waiting for the outcome ofCarlos Ylich wrote:Is the silence of Robert Houdart means it has sold Houdini
ChessBase or is working hard on version 2.0?
Glad to hear your reply Robert. More power to you,Houdini wrote:@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.
@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.
Cheers,
Robert
Some things we don't know. Other things we do know. And we do know, on the word of Don Dailey, that even if you, Mr. Houdart, muster another +50 ELO out of Houdini 2.0, it won't be the result of any new chess engine ideas you will have created, but just the handiwork of a skilled debugger.Houdini wrote:@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.
@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.
Cheers,
Robert
It is really odd that you insist in lambasting Don's work like this.benstoker wrote:Some things we don't know. Other things we do know. And we do know, on the word of Don Dailey, that even if you, Mr. Houdart, muster another +50 ELO out of Houdini 2.0, it won't be the result of any new chess engine ideas you will have created, but just the handiwork of a skilled debugger.Houdini wrote:@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.
@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.
Cheers,
Robert
You see, although Komodo is 150 ELO below Houdini, it's 100% "original" as to the 1% of the total code that matters, i.e., approx. 5% of the search() and about 3% of the eval() code. Of course, these days, around 99% of the source code is ministerial in nature, one-input-one-output crap functions, public domain junk like magic bitboards, bit counting asm garbage, etc.
It's a pity that fine debuggers like you don't get as much credit as the guys spinning their wheels creating buggy "original" code comprising just around 1% of the engine.
Robert, you and Don should partner up! Think about it. Do you smell the dollars, the euros?! You could explain to Don and Larry the Ippo* code, and then Don could figure out how to rewrite the code so that it's "original". You follow? Then, you, Robert, debug the holy shit out of Don's original rewrite. Sign a 50/50 partnership agreement, sell through Chessbase and go to the bank!
I can't wait. I love Houdini so much. Thank you Robert for developing it.Houdini wrote:@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.
@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.
Cheers,
Robert
Albert, take this as your opportunity to, for the very first time, define that word of yours, "original". Start with that.Albert Silver wrote:It is really odd that you insist in lambasting Don's work like this.benstoker wrote:Some things we don't know. Other things we do know. And we do know, on the word of Don Dailey, that even if you, Mr. Houdart, muster another +50 ELO out of Houdini 2.0, it won't be the result of any new chess engine ideas you will have created, but just the handiwork of a skilled debugger.Houdini wrote:@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.
@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.
Cheers,
Robert
You see, although Komodo is 150 ELO below Houdini, it's 100% "original" as to the 1% of the total code that matters, i.e., approx. 5% of the search() and about 3% of the eval() code. Of course, these days, around 99% of the source code is ministerial in nature, one-input-one-output crap functions, public domain junk like magic bitboards, bit counting asm garbage, etc.
It's a pity that fine debuggers like you don't get as much credit as the guys spinning their wheels creating buggy "original" code comprising just around 1% of the engine.
Robert, you and Don should partner up! Think about it. Do you smell the dollars, the euros?! You could explain to Don and Larry the Ippo* code, and then Don could figure out how to rewrite the code so that it's "original". You follow? Then, you, Robert, debug the holy shit out of Don's original rewrite. Sign a 50/50 partnership agreement, sell through Chessbase and go to the bank!
Why suggest that only 1% of his work is original, that he wants to rewrite IPPO code, and finally that his programming skills are so poor that they require an outsider to debug them?
What do you have against him?
Yes, because that is what _everyone_ wants. To spend hard earned money on re-hashed/debugged code that gives a slight ELO gain.benstoker wrote:Some things we don't know. Other things we do know. And we do know, on the word of Don Dailey, that even if you, Mr. Houdart, muster another +50 ELO out of Houdini 2.0, it won't be the result of any new chess engine ideas you will have created, but just the handiwork of a skilled debugger.Houdini wrote:@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.
@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.
Cheers,
Robert
You see, although Komodo is 150 ELO below Houdini, it's 100% "original" as to the 1% of the total code that matters, i.e., approx. 5% of the search() and about 3% of the eval() code. Of course, these days, around 99% of the source code is ministerial in nature, one-input-one-output crap functions, public domain junk like magic bitboards, bit counting asm garbage, etc.
It's a pity that fine debuggers like you don't get as much credit as the guys spinning their wheels creating buggy "original" code comprising just around 1% of the engine.
Robert, you and Don should partner up! Think about it. Do you smell the dollars, the euros?! You could explain to Don and Larry the Ippo* code, and then Don could figure out how to rewrite the code so that it's "original". You follow? Then, you, Robert, debug the holy shit out of Don's original rewrite. Sign a 50/50 partnership agreement, sell through Chessbase and go to the bank!