Robodini

[Don]

Only thing to talk about is when Komodo MP is coming ? I am dying of desperation to get it.

Believe me, I'm dying to release it! I'm making good progress. I'll announce something when it gets close which I hope will be soon.

[Master Om]

Only thing to talk about is when Komodo MP is coming ? I am dying of desperation to get it.

Believe me, I'm dying to release it! I'm making good progress. I'll announce something when it gets close which I hope will be soon.

And believe me, how much I owe you due to Komodo 5. I don't how many games it has saved me from losing in my CC games and how many it has helped me to win. I am privileged to have a program Like that. Even if you give me NEW SINGLE CORE Komodo, I am happy as ever after all I use it in IDeA and from my experience , In analysis it kicks Houdini 3 eval big time. Rocks in IDeA!!.
Than you don.
Waiting for the new single core.

[Don]

Only thing to talk about is when Komodo MP is coming ? I am dying of desperation to get it.

Believe me, I'm dying to release it! I'm making good progress. I'll announce something when it gets close which I hope will be soon.

And believe me, how much I owe you due to Komodo 5. I don't how many games it has saved me from losing in my CC games and how many it has helped me to win. I am privileged to have a program Like that. Even if you give me NEW SINGLE CORE Komodo, I am happy as ever after all I use it in IDeA and from my experience , In analysis it kicks Houdini 3 eval big time. Rocks in IDeA!!.
Than you don.
Waiting for the new single core.

Very kind works. Thank you!

[lkaufman]

(my guess for biggest improvement: space eval...missing entirely in Ippolit source code, just see Stockfish for a good one)

Bingo!

Well, to be honest, I don't believe it is the biggest improvement (except for Chess960)... Just that it is in there. And it is computed exactly the same way as in Stockfish btw.

Which version of Houdini added space eval? We tried a version of it quite a while ago in Komodo but could detect no benefit. Perhaps it's worth re-visiting.

In your opinion, is the big jump in Houdini 3 due to anything really original and significant (i.e. double-digit elo gains) or just to Stockfish ideas, parameter tuning, and a few small items here and there?

[Rebel]

(my guess for biggest improvement: space eval...missing entirely in Ippolit source code, just see Stockfish for a good one)

Bingo!

Well, to be honest, I don't believe it is the biggest improvement (except for Chess960)... Just that it is in there. And it is computed exactly the same way as in Stockfish btw.

Which version of Houdini added space eval? We tried a version of it quite a while ago in Komodo but could detect no benefit. Perhaps it's worth re-visiting.

Just had a look at the SF code. It's what I would call a form of center control. I have something very similar and used it for years in my active days although I had some reservations because basically (my) Mobility and some other minor stuff more or less do the same thing. I recently disabled it, bullet depth based testing was about equal and my stats showed the space evaluation absorbed 5% of the CPU time.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

You can't blame them......
Dr.D

I don't blame them doc, I perfectly understand

[Lavir]

For example what we know is a fact is that Houdini IS a modified version of Robbolito. But what we disagree on is whether he innovated, or simply made incremental improvements to this base. But that is a pretty silly thing to even argue about because that is a matter of definition and opinion and is mostly hidden anyway.

Completely... utterly... bogus.

It doesn't exist an innovation "better" than another, or "most hidden" vs "less hidden". Genius (and so creating a new idea) is the ability to create a connection between two things where others cannot find any. It doesn't matter at all if the points are more distant or less distant, the fact is that no matter the length of the gap, for those that cannot make a connection a meter is the same as a mile. You simply cannot pass.

So, just for this, Klimnt is no less "important" than Gogh, for example.

A little of study of Adorno and Heiddeger would make you good I think.

One forum poster on this thread thinks that "everybody" would be doing it if it were easy but that must be his opinion because how can he know that? That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Did he take a survey to see how many people tried and failed?

That's self evident, given the fact that nobody can even remotely come near to Houdini, isn't it? Or am I missing something? Do you want to say that you have hidden in a closet a program that can beat Houdini but you don't release it because... who knows why???

As far as I know very very few people tried to improve it and the ones that we are aware of DID make significant improvements.

Where? An example, thanks? Not 10 or 20 elo, please, something more concrete.

As for modding vs creating something "new", please stop playing the part of the ostrich. You and others programmers benefited from that "free" knowledge, the same as every painter benefited from the prospective of Giotto. Now, would you make me belief that just because in programming you can use a different way to implement things, then everything is suddenly different?

And for the problem of having the "first 3000 elo for free". Oh, well, I suppose that Ali got for "free" the work on footwork from Robinson, Michelangelo got for "free" the aforementioned prospective from Giotto, Tintoretto got for "free" the methods of using colors of the venetians, Milton got for "free" the Divine Comedy of Dante, and so on and so forth.

Does that mean that what these people produced is not of the same value (or more) just because they got something for "free"? If you really think that's the case then I must wake you up on the fact that NO human create something new from scratch. As I said above genius establish connections, but it doesn't create anything new from the base. Something as that doesn't exist in nature and not certainly in humans.

When humans find against some creation of an idea from the base (as it could be the creation of the Universe) then they call it a matter of God, and it becomes faith, just because it is unimaginable how the thing happened, the gap is too huge.

Now, or you expect Robert to be the Tetragrammaton of Chess or I don't understand what is all the point about.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

For example what we know is a fact is that Houdini IS a modified version of Robbolito. But what we disagree on is whether he innovated, or simply made incremental improvements to this base. But that is a pretty silly thing to even argue about because that is a matter of definition and opinion and is mostly hidden anyway.

Completely... utterly... bogus.

It doesn't exist an innovation "better" than another, or "most hidden" vs "less hidden". Genius (and so creating a new idea) is the ability to create a connection between two things where others cannot find any. It doesn't matter at all if the points are more distant or less distant, the fact is that no matter the length of the gap, for those that cannot make a connection a meter is the same as a mile. You simply cannot pass.

So, just for this, Klimnt is no less "important" than Gogh, for example.

A little of study of Adorno and Heiddeger would make you good I think.

One forum poster on this thread thinks that "everybody" would be doing it if it were easy but that must be his opinion because how can he know that? That's not a fact, it's an opinion. Did he take a survey to see how many people tried and failed?

That's self evident, given the fact that nobody can even remotely come near to Houdini, isn't it? Or am I missing something? Do you want to say that you have hidden in a closet a program that can beat Houdini but you don't release it because... who knows why???

As far as I know very very few people tried to improve it and the ones that we are aware of DID make significant improvements.

Where? An example, thanks? Not 10 or 20 elo, please, something more concrete.

As for modding vs creating something "new", please stop playing the part of the ostrich. You and others programmers benefited from that "free" knowledge, the same as every painter benefited from the prospective of Giotto. Now, would you make me belief that just because in programming you can use a different way to implement things, then everything is suddenly different?

And for the problem of having the "first 3000 elo for free". Oh, well, I suppose that Ali got for "free" the work on footwork from Robinson, Michelangelo got for "free" the aforementioned prospective from Giotto, Tintoretto got for "free" the methods of using colors of the venetians, Milton got for "free" the Divine Comedy of Dante, and so on and so forth.

Does that mean that what these people produced is not of the same value (or more) just because they got something for "free"? If you really think that's the case then I must wake you up on the fact that NO human create something new from scratch. As I said above genius establish connections, but it doesn't create anything new from the base. Something as that doesn't exist in nature and not certainly in humans.

When humans find against some creation of an idea from the base (as it could be the creation of the Universe) then they call it a matter of God, and it becomes faith, just because it is unimaginable how the thing happened, the gap is too huge.

Now, or you expect Robert to be the Tetragrammaton of Chess or I don't understand what is all the point about.

Robert did something unique with Houdini,only a fool can doubt this simple fact....

The sad thing is he and his creation are not safe anymore after releasing Robbodini 1.1......
Dr.D

[Lavir]

Which version of Houdini added space eval? We tried a version of it quite a while ago in Komodo but could detect no benefit. Perhaps it's worth re-visiting.

In your opinion, is the big jump in Houdini 3 due to anything really original and significant (i.e. double-digit elo gains) or just to Stockfish ideas, parameter tuning, and a few small items here and there?

And here it is an example of someone of the party of those that insist that what Robert did is "easy" trying to desperately understand how he did it, some way, to make that connection that's "not important".

A little hint, for God's sake!

Oh well... whatever you want.

[Lavir]

Robert did something unique with Houdini,only a fool can doubt this simple fact....

The sad thing is he and his creation are not safe anymore after releasing Robbodini 1.1......
Dr.D

Nothing is ever "safe", especially not knowledge, because it's in human nature to try to find that connection when they themselves cannot pass.

Just what I find amusing is that those that cannot still find that connection insist to call it "nothing".