how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[Dirt]

If I still have not convinced you that each of those three was a commercial exhortation, consider the possibility that the cumulative effect of the three quotes, together with the two advertising statements does constitute a commercial exhortation.

They are commercial exhortations, but not, I think, flagrant ones.

[Terry McCracken]

But this has nothing to do with Robert Houdart. Robert never signed anything that said his program is original. Robert Houdart never played in tournament and took money saying is programs is 100% his own. I understand your problem with Vas.

But your problem Don Quixote even if all you say is true, Robert Houdart did not commit a crime. His product is legal.

If I am wrong, I will ask you give us the name(s) of the person who Robert Houdart stole code from.

And why those person(s) have not made a charge against Robert Houdart.


Bob "Don Quixote" Hyatt tell the CCC community why you are not taking Robert Hourdart to court. Since you have all the goods on him as you claim. You know he has money from Houdini.......so tell us why.

Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.

The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...

Then Bob if Fabien or Vas make a claim against Robert Houdart. Then you can start talking about crimes, until that time stop suggesting Robert Houdart is guilty of a crime.

Copying code that is copyrighted IS a crime. You can't use the argument that Robo* is public domain, if IT contains copied code. It would also be an illegal copy that violates copyright.

If you violate copyright law (of which the GPL is a part) then that is a criminal act with potential criminal punishment if it is pursued.

Bob no one has come forward to say there was a copyright violation. You have no standing to make such a claim, and can not. It is not your copyright.

Bob you do have a hard on for Robert Houdart and Houdini, and you need to get over it.

You can not be judge and jury here Bob, Robert Houdart is not subject to ICGA rules.

Mark Young shutup it's a bogus strawman that you keep repeating ad nauseam.

Hello Terry nice to see you again. How are you doing today...better I hope.

BTW You never did tell me what troll freind you could not find in google. Could you tell me what you mean, or did you head clear long enough that you were able to find it in google.

How do you keep a troll in suspense?

Ok I will take it that you were able to find what you were asking for in google after all.

Your comment "How do you keep a troll in suspense?" Very clever Terry, you got me on that one. I hope you have a good day.

Yes I did. But as I said the name doesn't produce sensible results in a google search. You need to go back and re-read what I said as the info is there and you're still at a loss.

[georgerifkin]

mr schroeder will there ever be a new version of pro deo? or perhaps rebel?

Sorry to disappoint you, I don't see it happen.

ok, let me say it's a pity though
thanks for pro deo mr schroeder, it's one of my favourite programs!

[Rebel]

I think that an organizer must know what he wants and what not. Otherwise you shouldn't organize.

Your criticism is well taken.

But never denied by the CSVN.

The ICGA has indeed written down the means on how to establish what is original and not in their rule 2: through 'expert advice'.

The CSVN did. Had long talks with Cock in group email. It's on their much disliked: http://www.computerschaak.nl/index.php? ... 28&lang=en

The CSVN decided to trust Miguel and me more then the awful ICGA procedure violating its own rules.

Code: Select all

From the Charter: 

2 Membership

The Panel shall be open to:

[a] Programmers who have participated in any ICGA or ICCA World championship  for computer chess or in any Computer Olympiad or in any other computer competitions deemed appropriate by the ICGA.

[c] Persons accepted as experts by the ICGA or by a unanimous decision of the  Secretariat of the Panel.

The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict.

SMK and Uniacke both voted guilty and became world champion.

This kind of pretence should have been avoided by all means, right ?

And on [c] David said:

Code: Select all

 I agree with you that chess programmers and those who are experts on the techniques employed in chess programming are the only ones who can make detailed judgements on whether or not one program copies from another. 

Nevertheless 10 people the Panel were not chess programmers and yet were given the power to vote.

The CSVN can do exactly the same. They could have copied the ICGA effort, but decided they know better.

And why should the CSVN endorse such a procedure ?

IMHO the only real protection is unconditional verification of prize winners.

That's a thought to keep in mind.

I am currently having a debate with Bob about this, it's much more radical. But maybe the current situation requires so ?

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid374916

[Rebel]

mr schroeder will there ever be a new version of pro deo? or perhaps rebel?

Sorry to disappoint you, I don't see it happen.

ok, let me say it's a pity though
thanks for pro deo mr schroeder, it's one of my favourite programs!

Thank you George.

[Harvey Williamson]

I think that an organizer must know what he wants and what not. Otherwise you shouldn't organize.

Your criticism is well taken.

But never denied by the CSVN.

The ICGA has indeed written down the means on how to establish what is original and not in their rule 2: through 'expert advice'.

The CSVN did. Had long talks with Cock in group email. It's on their much disliked: http://www.computerschaak.nl/index.php? ... 28&lang=en

The CSVN decided to trust Miguel and me more then the awful ICGA procedure violating its own rules.

Code: Select all

From the Charter: 

2 Membership

The Panel shall be open to:

[a] Programmers who have participated in any ICGA or ICCA World championship  for computer chess or in any Computer Olympiad or in any other computer competitions deemed appropriate by the ICGA.

[c] Persons accepted as experts by the ICGA or by a unanimous decision of the  Secretariat of the Panel.

The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict.

SMK and Uniacke both voted guilty and became world champion.

This kind of pretence should have been avoided by all means, right ?

And on [c] David said:

Code: Select all

 I agree with you that chess programmers and those who are experts on the techniques employed in chess programming are the only ones who can make detailed judgements on whether or not one program copies from another. 

Nevertheless 10 people the Panel were not chess programmers and yet were given the power to vote.

The CSVN can do exactly the same. They could have copied the ICGA effort, but decided they know better.

And why should the CSVN endorse such a procedure ?

IMHO the only real protection is unconditional verification of prize winners.

That's a thought to keep in mind.

I am currently having a debate with Bob about this, it's much more radical. But maybe the current situation requires so ?

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid374916

Ed,

You continue to spread wrong information. The panel did not decide the verdict. The vote from the panel was just advisory in the report. The vote was before Uniacke and SMK knew what the punishment would be.

The ICGA was judge and jury not the panel. Our report was just that a report tp the ICGA. Vas and others (including you) were free to submit any other evidence you wanted to the ICGA. You could have submitted it through the panel or direct to the ICGA. You decided not to. Although you did sign the letter of complaint to the ICGA.

You decided to take your ball home during the investigation. Then decided to troll afterwards with your, sometimes, buddy Whittington. You have been caught out telling absolute lies and you are pursuing a bizarre agenda.

The decision of the ICGA is made it will not be changed. You should have stepped up to the plate when you had the chance during the investigation.

I still believe that if Vas decides to talk with the ICGA the sentence can be discussed but not the verdict that is done - you missed the boat and you know it. Now you are just trolling.

[marcelk]

I think that an organizer must know what he wants and what not. Otherwise you shouldn't organize.

Your criticism is well taken. But never denied by the CSVN.
[...]
The CSVN decided to trust Miguel and me more then the awful ICGA procedure violating its own rules.

Does it occur to you that in doing that they were violating their own tournament rules? Remember that in the CSVN's rules, in case of doubt of originality, you have to show your code to the organization. You don't even have to give it, only show. And only to the organization, nobody else. In the good old days Theo used to do such inspections. I don't think you, Miguel and George count as organizers here when judging Rybka's code. So under what rule did they make their judgement? By their own expertise? If so, why also write that they in fact don't have the knowledge to judge technical evidence. How can they ever resolve a cloning problem if they are going to have look at the code by themselves according to the rules? It is absurd beyond words to have such rules and not have this knowledge in your board at the same time.

Also interesting is that the CSVN rules are far more relaxed regarding originality than the ICGA's. In the CSVN rules it only matters that the code contains no 'recognizable parts of other programs'. Unrecognizable parts of other programs are apparently not a problem.

A final mystery is what rule allowed this board to ban Rybka for the ICT this year, when the Rybka investigation was still on its way? That seemed to me just as random and uninformed as the unbanning afterwards.

There are several reasons I stay away from Leiden but it is mainly this kind of 'shooting from the hip' decision making.

Code: Select all

From the Charter: 

2 Membership

The Panel shall be open to:

[a] Programmers who have participated in any ICGA or ICCA World championship  for computer chess or in any Computer Olympiad or in any other computer competitions deemed appropriate by the ICGA.

[c] Persons accepted as experts by the ICGA or by a unanimous decision of the  Secretariat of the Panel.

The main criticism on [a] is that the ICGA gave Rybka's direct competitors a vote of whom many had an interest in a guilty verdict.
SMK and Uniacke both voted guilty and became world champion.

This kind of pretence should have been avoided by all means, right ?

And on [c] David said:

Code: Select all

 I agree with you that chess programmers and those who are experts on the techniques employed in chess programming are the only ones who can make detailed judgements on whether or not one program copies from another. 

Nevertheless 10 people the Panel were not chess programmers and yet were given the power to vote.

I checked the 'panel votes', which was basically a technical vote that was asking 'should we stop here or not, and if not, why'. Who do you consider a non-expert whose panel vote was counted at this stage?

More importantly. To me the panel votes mean not a lot. The only vote that matters is that of the board. The board didn't contain competitors and they would suffer from either outcome. They had to make three decisions: 1. accept or not accept the panel's findings. 2. Accept or not accept VR's explanation. 3. How to follow-up.

IMHO they were more than capable of deciding that. They could have sent back the panel report if they didn't trust it. Or they could have simply ignored it and abolish the panel altogether and seek other advice elsewhere. But they didn't feel that was needed. That 5-0 vote is the only one that matters.

IMHO the only real protection is unconditional verification of prize winners.

That's a thought to keep in mind.

I am currently having a debate with Bob about this, it's much more radical. But maybe the current situation requires so ?

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... #pid374916

I like radical ideas, or at least the discussion thereof, because they help us look ahead. I completely agree with you we face a new reality and that it is wise to reconsider what we want with these tournaments. To me that is the only discussion worthwhile at this moment.

[bob]

But this has nothing to do with Robert Houdart. Robert never signed anything that said his program is original. Robert Houdart never played in tournament and took money saying is programs is 100% his own. I understand your problem with Vas.

But your problem Don Quixote even if all you say is true, Robert Houdart did not commit a crime. His product is legal.

If I am wrong, I will ask you give us the name(s) of the person who Robert Houdart stole code from.

And why those person(s) have not made a charge against Robert Houdart.


Bob "Don Quixote" Hyatt tell the CCC community why you are not taking Robert Hourdart to court. Since you have all the goods on him as you claim. You know he has money from Houdini.......so tell us why.

Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.

The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...

Then Bob if Fabien or Vas make a claim against Robert Houdart. Then you can start talking about crimes, until that time stop suggesting Robert Houdart is guilty of a crime.

Copying code that is copyrighted IS a crime. You can't use the argument that Robo* is public domain, if IT contains copied code. It would also be an illegal copy that violates copyright.

If you violate copyright law (of which the GPL is a part) then that is a criminal act with potential criminal punishment if it is pursued.

Bob no one has come forward to say there was a copyright violation. You have no standing to make such a claim, and can not. It is not your copyright.

Bob you do have a hard on for Robert Houdart and Houdini, and you need to get over it.

You can not be judge and jury here Bob, Robert Houdart is not subject to ICGA rules.

Let me point out, Rybka versions prior to version 4 used Code from Crafty (rotated bitboard stuff). Are you CERTAIN no versions of robo* nor Houdini copied THAT code when Rybka was RE'ed???

[geots]

I can add that if the claim is that Houdini is illegal that is a different claim than the claim that it is not original then I think that there is no proof for the last claim.

I read that Houdini is based on Ippolit and I saw no proof that Ippolit is illegal.

Uri, I never thought I would see this forum fall this far into the depths of shame. It's one and only purpose is to tear people down and try to hurt their feelings. A man cannot even announce a new engine version if it is approx. 2700 or above, without being assaulted by useless people. What makes it worse is a whole lot of these despicable people know nothing about what they are saying. These people are sick and need help.


gts

[Terry McCracken]

I can add that if the claim is that Houdini is illegal that is a different claim than the claim that it is not original then I think that there is no proof for the last claim.

I read that Houdini is based on Ippolit and I saw no proof that Ippolit is illegal.

Uri, I never thought I would see this forum fall this far into the depths of shame. It's one and only purpose is to tear people down and try to hurt their feelings. A man cannot even announce a new engine version if it is approx. 2700 or above, without being assaulted by useless people. What makes it worse is a whole lot of these despicable people know nothing about what they are saying. These people are sick and need help.


gts