Roger Brown wrote:I really do not see the reason for the heat generated in this thread.
I have seen announcements for commercial products here on several occasions. The responses seem to be about Houdini and its origins and the ethics of its author rather than the statements in the announcement.
A new thread should be started for that purpose in my opinion.
Later.
This thread started out as an informative thread about Aquarium and Houdini.
It got disrupted by the usual suspects whose only purpose is to insult and derail the thread from its intended purpose.
Moderators see it happen, and do nothing to prevent it from happening.
Houdini wrote:Peter,
And your rambling goes on and on and on...
You really seem to have an obsession for Houdini, maybe you should get some professional help.
Robert
Here's the problem:
1. My "ramblings" are based on fact.
2. You keep denying Houdini is based on Robbolitto. Fact.
3. You are now selling a clone. Fact.
How about I get professional help right after you admit Houdini is based off Robbolitto?
That's fare isn't it? Does the truth really hurt that much you can't admit it? You'll only be confirming what everyone knows whether they choose to believe it or not.
The ball is in your court.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Houdini wrote:Peter, I really hope the moderators of this forum will do you the favor of removing your posts in this thread, as they portray your character in a very unfavorable way.
On top of your rather disgraceful use of language, your interventions demonstrate that you haven't got a clue about Houdini.
Peter is referring to Conkie's and Dailey's evidence that Houdini1 is a derivative of Robbolito (possibly of one of the public domain versions), with modifications added. As a public domain program, and not GPL, anyone can sell it under their own name even without mentioning the origins. That is all fine and that is how the 'comrades' have decided they have wanted it to be. Very generous of them.
Calling it your own original work is another thing. To be fair, you have as far as I can see never made such a direct statement that it is your own original work, but you do have repeatedly suggested in your choice of words exactly that and avoid direct answers. But since you find it appropriate to advertise your wares here in order to make a profit, you might also answer the simple question:
"Is all game playing code in Houdini2 your own original work?"
A simple 'yes' would do as an unambiguous answer and will increase your sales here. Mind that the answer is far from obvious to those who have taken notice of the intimate similarities between your previous version and Robbolitto. You have to respect their reservations.
Last edited by marcelk on Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This thread started out as an informative thread about Aquarium and Houdini.
It got disrupted by the usual suspects whose only purpose is to insult and derail the thread from its intended purpose.
Moderators see it happen, and do nothing to prevent it from happening.
Talkchess in a nutshell, I'm afraid...
Robert[/quote]
Instead of misdirecting everyone, why not confirm that Houdini is indeed based on Robbolitto?
Admit it and I will move along on my _very_ merry way. Until you stop trying to deceive this community, there is no rock you can hide under.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Houdini wrote:This thread started out as an informative thread about Aquarium and Houdini.
As long as you "forget" to tell the customers about the roots of Houdini, people will remind you and the community. The customers have the right to know what they are buying.
So in fact this thread went on informative, just like you intended
Best wishes,
Alex
Last edited by Alexander Schmidt on Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Houdini wrote:
This thread started out as an informative thread about Aquarium and Houdini.
It got disrupted by the usual suspects whose only purpose is to insult and derail the thread from its intended purpose.
Moderators see it happen, and do nothing to prevent it from happening.
Talkchess in a nutshell, I'm afraid...
Robert
If you want to advertise your "product" here to increase your sales volume, then you have to put up the questions of originality or value of that product.
Since this is not _your_ board, and you chose to advertise here, the public has the right to raise these questions.
If you choose to continually side step them, then they will continue to come.
You can't have it one way and not the other.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Houdini wrote:ChessOK has now released the Houdini 2 Aquarium product family, see http://chessok.com/?p=25808.
FACT.
Houdini wrote:
It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result.
Best gui is debatable. Strongest engine is factual.
Houdini wrote:
The package includes Houdini 2.0b, this is an update to Houdini 2 containing some minor bug fixes and Nalimov EGTB support. This update will also be made available to all current Houdini 2 users, e-mails will be sent in the following week.
Engine included - fact.
Type of EGTB supported - fact
Availability of update to current users - fact
Modality of delivery - fact
Houdini wrote:
Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price, I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money.
Opinion but this was stated clearly. I happen to agree with the little money part more in connection with computerchess of which Houdini and Aquarium are tiny parts.
I really do not see the reason for the heat generated in this thread.
I have seen announcements for commercial products here on several occasions. The responses seem to be about Houdini and its origins and the ethics of its author rather than the statements in the announcement.
A new thread should be started for that purpose in my opinion.
Later.
I don't get your reasoning. What has the fact that something is a FACT has anything to do whether it is commercial advertizing or not? Advertisement usually contains fact; if it does not (e.g. lying about the price, or giving wrong specs of the product) the one placing the advertisement is in severe legal trouble, as he will be bound to honor the terms in the ad.
Houdini wrote:This thread started out as an informative thread about Aquarium and Houdini.
As long as you "forget" to tell the customers about the roots of Houdini, people will remind you and the community. The customers have the right to know what they are buying.
So in fact this thread went on informative, just like your intentions
Best wishes,
Alex
I'm finding this thread _very_ informative.
Once again Robert is being asked about the origins of his program, and once again he is dodging the question, this time by raising "moderation" issues.
Same ole song and dance I'm afraid.
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
Houdini wrote:
This thread started out as an informative thread about Aquarium and Houdini.
It got disrupted by the usual suspects whose only purpose is to insult and derail the thread from its intended purpose.
Moderators see it happen, and do nothing to prevent it from happening.
Talkchess in a nutshell, I'm afraid...
Robert
If you want to advertise your "product" here to increase your sales volume, then you have to put up the questions of originality or value of that product.
Since this is not _your_ board, and you chose to advertise here, the public has the right to raise these questions.
If you choose to continually side step them, then they will continue to come.
You can't have it one way and not the other.
Peter
Surely Houdini is an improved, maybe rewritten Robbo. On the other hand, why you are not so vocal about original, commercial Fritzes, Juniors, Hiarcses and Shredders? They are 200 Elo points weaker than Houdini and 150 Elo points weaker than many open source programs, and some of them appeared 2 years ago in the form of free open sources. Isn't that called idiocy, incompetence, laziness in the field of professional CC, and a commercial lie to call them "strong"? The supreme goal of professional CC is to be an original idiot? In the commercial domain I find both the thievery and the cult of original idiocy as pretty bothering.
