Cyclone xTreme StormPack
by Kranium
based on:
Fruit 2.1 by Fabien Letouzey
Toga II by Thomas Gaksch
Grapefruit 1.0 by Vadim Demichev
Toga CMLX 145e4 by Teemu Pudas
Cyclone xTreme by Norman Schmidt
GPL with free sources.
So you can see that all what Norman do is right.
But not what others do here.
Best
Frank
Last edited by Frank Quisinsky on Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
kranium wrote:
Only problem is:
there is absolutely nothing even slightly substantial to suggest that Ippolit is derived from Rybka...?
Then, why isn't IvanHoe tested by CCRL/CEGT?
For me it is already clarified and is very simple to understand: They only are testing best versions, and the current best version of the Ippo* family is Houdini.
That's not the excuse they have officially offered...
Instead it seems, they have resorted to a vague and slimy denial concerning 'anonymous authors'
with some other uninformed testers, simply jumping on the bandwagon...because it sounds good?
warst Du es nicht der geschrieben hat ...
Ich warte nur darauf das jemand mit seinen Namen für die IPP Engines steht. Dann werde ich testen.
Warum bist Du nicht ehrlich.
Solltest nicht hingehen und etwas verteidigen von dem Du offenbar keine Ahnung hast, ehrlich!
Das geht in die Hose!
Die Situation ist doch jetzt ganz einfach.
ChessOK vermarktet. Also sollte ChessOK die Sourcen anfordern und überprüfen ob etwas dran ist, wobei die Beweise von Lance Perkins eindeutig sind. Mithin muss Robert auch unter GPL veröffentlichen. Da geht kein Weg dran vorbei. Es sei denn ist es ChessOK völlig egal was verkauft wird, Hauptsache es wird etwas verkauft. Ich kann mir einfach nicht vorstellen das es ChessOK egal ist denn sowohl Vitor als auch Sergei machen mir nicht gerade den Eindruck das es egal wäre auch wenn sie Rybka vermarktet haben. Das ist eine andere Geschichte, auch andere Programmierer haben Vas gelobt ... z. B. Stefan ... und unterschriebt nunmehr diesen dummen offenen Brief.
Es ist nicht zu spät die Sourcen von Houdini zu prüfen. Noch sind keine 5 Jahre ins Land gezogen.
Ich denke die Käufer haben ein Recht darauf zu wissen ob eine Software legal ist oder nicht, auch wenn es vielen Käufern egal ist, vielen ist es nicht egal.
Mit anderen Worten:
Legal und egal ...
Hat nichts miteinander zu tun!
Frank,
1) You should consult the rating lists to see which engine is stronger, can I suggest the following useful link: http://www.amateurschach.de .
2) Houdini does NOT contain any licensed code other than the EGTB probing code.
3) I have no contact with Norman, and Norman did not create the sources I am using.
Please stop spreading all this nonsense about Houdini in an endless series of forum posts on several forums.
Robert
So by Robert's own words, Houdini doesn't have _any_ licensed code other than the Nalimov code. That would mean it is 100% original. The Ippo family of engines has a public domain license, and Robert is stating Houdini has _zero_ licensed code in it.
His words, not mine.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
kranium wrote:
Only problem is:
there is absolutely nothing even slightly substantial to suggest that Ippolit is derived from Rybka...?
Then, why isn't IvanHoe tested by CCRL/CEGT?
For me it is already clarified and is very simple to understand: They only are testing best versions, and the current best version of the Ippo* family is Houdini.
That's not the excuse they have officially offered...
Instead it seems, they have resorted to a vague and slimy denial concerning 'anonymous authors'
with some other uninformed testers, simply jumping on the bandwagon...because it sounds good?
At least we get this opinion from someone who would certainly know what is involved in "vague and slimy".
bob wrote:Couple of things. First, if houdini comes from firebird/ivanhoe/robolito/ippolit, and if, as has been stated, the ip* family was based on Rybka 3 RE + changes, then houdini is a problem either because of the GPL / fruit, or copyright because anything Vas added to fruit would be his, which would violate GPL as well since all changes have to be released.
Second, one can sell a program based on GPL, so long as the GPL is followed, which means source MUST be available. Otherwise, it is a copyright infringement.
Finally, this is only going to get more complicated before it gets better. Ethics are at "low tide" for some...
You are one of the last sane and honest humans left in CCC, that's why few listen to you here....
This place is depressing for me, it keeps reminding me what human nature really is and what this may mean for computer chess down the road.
bob wrote:Couple of things. First, if houdini comes from firebird/ivanhoe/robolito/ippolit, and if, as has been stated, the ip* family was based on Rybka 3 RE + changes, then houdini is a problem either because of the GPL / fruit, or copyright because anything Vas added to fruit would be his, which would violate GPL as well since all changes have to be released.
Second, one can sell a program based on GPL, so long as the GPL is followed, which means source MUST be available. Otherwise, it is a copyright infringement.
Finally, this is only going to get more complicated before it gets better. Ethics are at "low tide" for some...
You are one of the last sane and honest humans left in CCC, that's why few listen to you here....
This place is depressing for me, it keeps reminding me what human nature really is and what this may mean for computer chess down the road.
Life has a better chance to survive longer if technology increases. Doesn't matter at what cost as long as life survives.
IMO, Whether Houdini 1 had robbolito code or not has nothing to do with the commercial Houdini 2.0. Robert, in order to legally protect himself, could have change all the copied code to pure ideas to his own code when he made houdini 2.0.
Also, even if Houdini 1 had robbolito code then since no one is claiming the code then it is legal to use as one sees fit. I don't see any stealing whatsoever. Only a fool wouldn't make use of the strong ideas of it if they were planning to go commercial or were already commercial.
Lastly, having very high ethics is foolish (unless you believe in God or something) and having very low ethics is also foolish. The best thing to have is medium ethics (ethics which causes life to survive longer).
if so, my congratulation for this stong engine Robert!
But after all available information in the past, GPL sources are used.
Peter:
Robbolito is GPL
Only the first unclear Igorit sources are PD
I am sure that a company like ChessOK have interest to check that before a long time work started.
It should be not a problem for Robert Houdert to send his sources to his commercial partner ChessOK.
You know that I have no interest to discussion again 5 years about it. Situation should be clear.
I think each one should be able to learn from mistakes in the past. And I am sure that Robert Houdart will understand the situation too. Should be no problem for Robert if all is from himself.
So, what is wrong?
The Rybka programmer is also working for ChessOK and can look in the sources by Robert too.
Vas and Robert are partner, working for the same company.
Isn't it?
Victor have a lot of knowledge in programmings. A very nice guy too. I think no problem for Victor to give the sources an exactly look.
Best
Frank
Last edited by Frank Quisinsky on Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
