how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Rebel
Posts: 4271
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:04 am

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Rebel » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:22 pm

georgerifkin wrote: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.

mwyoung
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:27 pm

bob wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mark young wrote: 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.

User avatar
Rebel
Posts: 4271
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:04 am

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Rebel » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:30 pm

Thomas Mayer wrote:
Rebel wrote:
bob wrote: I simply state facts. You are EXACTLY in the same boat as the few remaining Rybka fans. Sorry that you don't like FACTS, but fact is, houdini is based on Robolito. Ton of evidence to support that, more coming each day. Learn to live with it, because it is NOT going away...
You are fighting a phantom that can't be defeated. 2009 (ippo, robo) became the deathblow for fair competition.

In this light I can understand the decision of the ICGA to keep rule #2 straight up although voluntarily degrading the yearly WC as a second division tournament.
Hi Ed,

whereas I have hope that this might change in the future again. What is the CSVN thinking about rule #2 ? And what are you thinking ? Just want to ask because I am currently not sure about that.

Greets, Thomas
Hi Thomas,

The CSVN repeatedly said: programmers give us the definition of a clone and we will abide.

And I think they make a valid point.

Programmers need to unite in a new organization that protects them against the clones. I had a long talk with David and the ICGA is not going to do it.

Engin
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:40 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Engin Üstün
Contact:

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Engin » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:12 pm

false !

you can not tell me that you have about 30 years of chess programming knowledge and since time without success, and now at time after Robbolito source comes public, that you got in a short time to be number 1 , dont tell me that is not true !

Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Terry McCracken » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:23 pm

mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mark young wrote: 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.
Terry McCracken

mwyoung
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:39 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mark young wrote: 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.

K I Hyams
Posts: 3507
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:21 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by K I Hyams » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:44 pm

Dirt wrote: I see no reason he should not also have an opinion about what is the best interface, even if it is wrong.
K I Hyams wrote: Of course he has a perfect right to have an opinion on price. However, context is everything and when a manufacturer puts his own opinion on the price of his own product into a post designed to promote his own product, the result is a commercial exhortation.
The answer to your point, quoted above, is not what I intended. I had just got back from a hard day in London and my concentration was not as good as it should have been. The answer that I intended is given below, I replace the word "price" with the phrase "best interface"

Dirt wrote: I see no reason he should not also have an opinion about what is the best interface, even if it is wrong.
Of course he has a perfect right to have an opinion on best interface. However, context is everything and when a manufacturer puts his own opinion on the best interface into a post designed to promote his own product, the result is a commercial exhortation.

Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Terry McCracken » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:47 pm

mwyoung wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mark young wrote: 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?
Terry McCracken

mwyoung
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:54 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
mark young wrote: 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.

User avatar
marcelk
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by marcelk » Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:58 pm

Rebel wrote:
Thomas Mayer wrote: whereas I have hope that this might change in the future again. What is the CSVN thinking about rule #2 ? And what are you thinking ? Just want to ask because I am currently not sure about that.
The CSVN repeatedly said: programmers give us the definition of a clone and we will abide.

And I think they make a valid point.
I think that an organizer must know what he wants and what not. Otherwise you shouldn't organize.

Making a definition is not extremely hard, but starting thinking from the word 'clone' sends you in the wrong direction. If you forget the word 'clone', a definition could be

"The game playing code may not contain copyrightable elements of others than the team".
Or "The economical and moral rights of all game playing must be with members of the team".
Or, or you want to disallow public domain code:
"All game playing code must be the original work of the members of the team"

You can add exceptions (like for EGTB). You can allow or not allow people to be part of multiple teams as an alternative. These examples are all choices the organizer can make perfectly by himself.

You must add how you will verify or enforce the rule, otherwise you shouldn't have it. The ICGA has indeed written down the means on how to establish what is original and not in their rule 2: through 'expert advice'. I have seen a tournament format (music, not chess) where the jury was only allowed to be consist of retired prior winners.

You can agree or not agree with this verifcation method, but it was written by the programmers and they have followed it ever since. What can improve is the checklist of things to look at, but that is coloring between the lines. It is still a reasonable method, because the alternative is to refer to legal definitions in your tournament rules. And from that moment you have to pick a jurisdiction and lawyers to fight it out. As a chess organizer you don't want to end up there.

The CSVN can do exactly the same. They could have copied the ICGA effort, but decided they know better. While they have people like Jaap in their organization as their Member or Honor and founder. Why on earth not consult him if you're confused? He is a professor in computer science, professor in law, the editor of the ICGA journal, TD in the WCCC, and author of a chess program. Instead they decided he is not good enough to guide them through their confusion. Then what will be good enough? Their request is unsolvable. You can't organize a tournament and at the same time state that you don't have the means to make the rules, or don't understand the rules that your predecessors made. Then you should get help or let others organize it.
Programmers need to unite in a new organization that protects them against the clones. I had a long talk with David and the ICGA is not going to do it.
IMHO the only real protection is unconditional verification of prize winners.

A practical problem I see with that is that verifying a program without accusation is extremely hard. With an accusation at least one can do a comparison between 2 programs. Without it, what can you do? Somebody at ICC claiming to be an author sent around "his source code". It looked suspicious (why would somebody from India make code comments in Dutch), but how are you ever going to find out who is the real author? In this case after a lot of puzzling and luck we found out that it was a closed-source Dutch program. Somehow it got leaked without the real author being aware of that. How is an investigator going to find out of this was entered in a tournament if there was no accusation of what it really was?

An alternative is an 'anything goes' tournament format. But then you need a way to establish who has the best version of Robbolito instead of the luckiest one.

Post Reply