Someone worked hard, someone else not.

MM · Post by MM » Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:16 am

Hi all,

when you have a brand, usually you don't need to release an extraordinary product for selling, the brand is a guarantee. Mr Houdart didnt have any brand and needed to work hard to make an engine 50/60 elo stronger than Rybka 4.1 or even more. Other ''mighty'' engines are miles away and sell mainly for the brand or for the passion of many chess lovers like me. Honor to Mr Houdard for its work and the progress of play level.

Regards

Zlaire · Post by **Zlaire** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:51 am

Oh, I know this game, let me try too!

Someone worked hard, spending tens of thousands of hours creating an engine. He spent a few dozen of them resolving a specific bug somewhere deep in the transposition table which made the engine fail in certain positions. This someone also solved hundreds of issues with the move generation returning illegal moves. He resolved countless memory leaks, and issues with the UCI/xboard protocol. When finally having a pretty much bug free engine he started improving the search, spending hours and hours reading computer chess theory while trying to understand one of the two hundred concepts he wanted to implement. And so on.

Someone else not, he just took an engine, had two good ideas. Implemented them and took the credit.

Who's more deserving here?

Dr.Ex · Post by **Dr.Ex** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:26 am

You've gotta be kidding!

Terry McCracken · Post by **Terry McCracken** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:41 am

Zlaire wrote:Oh, I know this game, let me try too!

Someone worked hard, spending tens of thousands of hours creating an engine. He spent a few dozen of them resolving a specific bug somewhere deep in the transposition table which made the engine fail in certain positions. This someone also solved hundreds of issues with the move generation returning illegal moves. He resolved countless memory leaks, and issues with the UCI/xboard protocol. When finally having a pretty much bug free engine he started improving the search, spending hours and hours reading computer chess theory while trying to understand one of the two hundred concepts he wanted to implement. And so on.

Someone else not, he just took an engine, had two good ideas. Implemented them and took the credit.

Who's more deserving here?

Very well said! +10

MM · Post by MM » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:28 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
Zlaire wrote:Oh, I know this game, let me try too!

Someone worked hard, spending tens of thousands of hours creating an engine. He spent a few dozen of them resolving a specific bug somewhere deep in the transposition table which made the engine fail in certain positions. This someone also solved hundreds of issues with the move generation returning illegal moves. He resolved countless memory leaks, and issues with the UCI/xboard protocol. When finally having a pretty much bug free engine he started improving the search, spending hours and hours reading computer chess theory while trying to understand one of the two hundred concepts he wanted to implement. And so on.

Someone else not, he just took an engine, had two good ideas. Implemented them and took the credit.

Who's more deserving here?
Very well said! +10

Hi,

i state we have different point of view, anyway nothing in chess programming starts from nothing, the goal of Mr Houdart is to have given a plus strenght that nobody is able to reach. Don'you want an engine that plays as close to perfection as possible? Houdini is (for now) it.

Regards

Michel · Post by **Michel** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:31 pm

Don'you want an engine that plays as close to perfection as possible? Houdini is (for now) it.

The thread you started was about who worked hardest. Now you seem to be changing the subject....

AdminX · Post by **AdminX** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:51 pm

MM wrote:Hi all,

when you have a brand, usually you don't need to release an extraordinary product for selling, the brand is a guarantee. Mr Houdart didnt have any brand and needed to work hard to make an engine 50/60 elo stronger than Rybka 4.1 or even more. Other ''mighty'' engines are miles away and sell mainly for the brand or for the passion of many chess lovers like me. Honor to Mr Houdard for its work and the progress of play level.

Regards

Hi all,

When you have a brand, usually you don't need to release an extraordinary product for selling, the brand is a guarantee. Mr Houdart didnt have any brand and needed to work hard to make an engine 50/60 elo stronger than Rybka 4.1 or even more. Other ''Mighty'' engines are miles away and sell mainly for the brand or for the passion of many chess lovers like me. Honor to Mr Houdard for its work and the progress of play level.

Regards
_________________
TED

Note: I made some improvements to the above so it's okay to claim this statement as my own work! See all the formatting changes I put into this. ROTFL

Terry McCracken · Post by **Terry McCracken** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:53 pm

MM wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
Zlaire wrote:Oh, I know this game, let me try too!

Someone worked hard, spending tens of thousands of hours creating an engine. He spent a few dozen of them resolving a specific bug somewhere deep in the transposition table which made the engine fail in certain positions. This someone also solved hundreds of issues with the move generation returning illegal moves. He resolved countless memory leaks, and issues with the UCI/xboard protocol. When finally having a pretty much bug free engine he started improving the search, spending hours and hours reading computer chess theory while trying to understand one of the two hundred concepts he wanted to implement. And so on.

Someone else not, he just took an engine, had two good ideas. Implemented them and took the credit.

Who's more deserving here?
Very well said! +10
Hi,

i state we have different point of view, anyway nothing in chess programming starts from nothing, the goal of Mr Houdart is to have given a plus strenght that nobody is able to reach. Don'you want an engine that plays as close to perfection as possible? Houdini is (for now) it.

Regards

Mr. Houdart is a flim-flam man. All he did is tune other's software with little effort on his part. Is this what you want?

Terry McCracken · Post by **Terry McCracken** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:54 pm

AdminX wrote:
MM wrote:Hi all,

when you have a brand, usually you don't need to release an extraordinary product for selling, the brand is a guarantee. Mr Houdart didnt have any brand and needed to work hard to make an engine 50/60 elo stronger than Rybka 4.1 or even more. Other ''mighty'' engines are miles away and sell mainly for the brand or for the passion of many chess lovers like me. Honor to Mr Houdard for its work and the progress of play level.

Regards
Hi all,

When you have a brand, usually you don't need to release an extraordinary product for selling, the brand is a guarantee. Mr Houdart didnt have any brand and needed to work hard to make an engine 50/60 elo stronger than Rybka 4.1 or even more. Other ''Mighty'' engines are miles away and sell mainly for the brand or for the passion of many chess lovers like me. Honor to Mr Houdard for its work and the progress of play level.

Regards
_________________
TED

Note: I made some improvements to the above so it's okay to claim this statement as my own work! ROTFL

MM · Post by MM » Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:49 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
MM wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
Zlaire wrote:Oh, I know this game, let me try too!

Someone worked hard, spending tens of thousands of hours creating an engine. He spent a few dozen of them resolving a specific bug somewhere deep in the transposition table which made the engine fail in certain positions. This someone also solved hundreds of issues with the move generation returning illegal moves. He resolved countless memory leaks, and issues with the UCI/xboard protocol. When finally having a pretty much bug free engine he started improving the search, spending hours and hours reading computer chess theory while trying to understand one of the two hundred concepts he wanted to implement. And so on.

Someone else not, he just took an engine, had two good ideas. Implemented them and took the credit.

Who's more deserving here?
Very well said! +10
Hi,

i state we have different point of view, anyway nothing in chess programming starts from nothing, the goal of Mr Houdart is to have given a plus strenght that nobody is able to reach. Don'you want an engine that plays as close to perfection as possible? Houdini is (for now) it.

Regards
Mr. Houdart is a flim-flam man. All he did is tune other's software with little effort on his part. Is this what you want?

Hi,

as i said some times ago, honestly i can't appreciate if someone copies an engine and add something to gain some elo. But honestly i don't know if someone has any proves that he has done it, i just know its engine is by far the stronger and these things were already said about Rybka and other engines.
I am not a Houdini fan boy but i think logically there are 2 possibility:

1. Houdini is a clone (then there should be a rule that disqualifies it)
2. Houdini is not a clone and it's legally at the top.

Which one please?

Regards

Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.

Re: Someone worked hard, someone else not.