IPON results for Houdini 4

[IGarcia]

The important is the TRUE, like H4 is the top engine, but its also true is controversial and its funny to see how fast people forget that, even the author.

Outside the narrow world of Talkchess geeks there is no controversy about Houdini.
To put it differently, the so-called "controversy" is entirely inside your head .

Its not only some geeks here, or just me, Read for example the houdini page at chess programing: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Houdini

Actually I don't care if your engine still controversial, or not any more. I also think its ok you make money for your work. I'm just pointing you are funny when you speak about other clones and how fast you forget the past.

@Bobby Johnson: The absence of legal actions does not prof nothing.

[kranium]

"Houdini does NOT contain any Ippolit code."

I see this seemingly neverending stream of claims that this engine's origin is that, and this engine's origin is this, etc., but I fail to the see the importance of such allegations. Why does it matter?

If Ippolit or any developer feels that Robert or anyone else has misappropriated its code, then such developer can pursue legal action. I have seen nothing on the internet to suggest that Robert and/or his company have been or may be sued for any such reason.

If it's not a violation of some international law, in the end it doesn't really matter and is immaterial to most of us.

Are these criticisms mainly born from Robert's alleged failure to provide adequate attribution to some earlier engine developer or . . . what?

My comments are also aimed at Rybka which would probably still be #1 but-for such code disputes.

I agree for the most part...

Vas claimed the source code as his own, but did not sue, remained fairly silent on the issue, and eventually moved back to Czech Republic.
In the meantime Houdini has taken Rybka's place in the rankings, and now owns all the same contracts Rybka used to own...

a real strange story...and apparently (according to Vas) the Rybka3 source code has been lost, perhaps this is why he took no action?
the whole thing: difficult to understand how or why

As far a Robert goes, he has done a great job developing Houdini...a fantastic piece of work
but it remains controversial due to its origin, and statements such as posted

[Houdini]

Its not only some geeks here, or just me, Read for example the houdini page at chess programing: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Houdini

LOL, as proof that it's not just the Talkchess geeks you show me the... Chess Programming Wiki?
Thank you for making my point .

You know, there is a world outside with many thousands of people that happily use and play chess with Houdini every day.

[IGarcia]

Its not only some geeks here, or just me, Read for example the houdini page at chess programing: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Houdini

LOL, as proof that it's not just the Talkchess geeks you show me the... Chess Programming Wiki?
Thank you for making my point .

You know, there is a world outside with many thousands of people that happily use and play chess with Houdini every day.

That link was just an example, not a proof. There you can find links to openchess forums, talkchess forums and other sites where was a ongoing discussion about your engine origin.

I have nothing to proof and I dont mind what you do with houdini. It was funny the way you direct (mention?) towards clones, as if you where mother theresea of calcuta.

Seems this is way offtopic. Besides all discussion about origin, congratulations for 1st place in IPON. Clone or not is a big achievement.

[Adam Hair]

, if ICGA will ever set the 60% rule on Sim tester, Houdini will pass it.

The problem is, that the Sim-tester is not able to find clones. I tried 2 runs with one engine (2 files, one renamed) and the similarity was only 73%. I tried Stockfish with a aggressive parameter-setting ( so the code fas nearly 100% identical (except the settings of aggressiveness, cowardice and mobiltiy)) and the Sim-tester said: 53% similarity to default-Stockfish.
So forget this tool. It is an interesting idea, but it doesnt work!
And because of this problem (nobody can say,how much similarity the code of an engine has), I decided to test everything, which is not a 100% clone (like Samsung is 100% Robodini). For serious testing, I see no other way.

Stefan

It works fine. It just requires an adjustment in the commands it sends to the engine. After that, the self-similarity percentages are very high.

Also, it is very hard to disguise highly derived engines without making them much weaker (or stronger) than the original.

[Adam Hair]

And you probably weakened the engine by 200-500 ELO points. No wonder you will get a low similarity...

Definitly not! It is a aggressive-playing setting, which I used some time ago on playchess. It is perhaps 30 Elo weaker than Stockfish default, definitly not 200-500...

Stefan

Maybe you can post here the settings, a self-play match (not necessarily very long, just to have the order of magnitude of weakening), and the results from Sim.

I set some extreme values:
Aggressiveness=200
Cowardice=0
Mobility (Midgame)=150
Mobility (Endgame)=150

Similarity is 61%. Engine is weakened by ~180 ELO points. Would be curious how did you get 53% similarity weakening by only 30 points.

It was an older Stockfish (dont know exactly which one).
But the real point and problem is, that even if the sim-tester would work perfectly, why should 60% be the deadline? And what about an engine with 59.9% or 60.1% similarity?
All deadlines beneath 100% (real clones, only renamed engines etc.) are arbitrarily and not objectively. And because of that problem, I decided not to do so and to test all engines, which are not 100%-clones.
I dont know, if this is the best solution, but I dont see a better one.

Stefan

The 60% was suggested by me based on my study. A 60% similarity is more than 5 standard deviations above the average similarity in my study.

Edit:
I meant to emphasize that the 60% is also relative to my test conditions and the positions used in the similarity tool.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

The important is the TRUE, like H4 is the top engine, but its also true is controversial and its funny to see how fast people forget that, even the author.

Outside the narrow world of Talkchess geeks there is no controversy about Houdini.
To put it differently, the so-called "controversy" is entirely inside your head .

Because only the Talkchess geeks know who you are and the origin of your precious engine....

Don't get me wrong,I like Houdini and I'm rather happy to be called a geek if that garantees that I know more about your stuff....

[ouachita]

You know, there is a world outside with many thousands of people that happily use and play chess with Houdini every day.

After 4 years of hard work, I achieved the IM title today. Over that period, I used first Rybka and later Houdini for any engine analysis. Therefore, I want to thank both you and Vas for your indirect assistance. Now, on to the GM title!

[Tomcass]

Congratulations, Bobby!!

Regards from Barcelona,

Tom.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Its not only some geeks here, or just me, Read for example the houdini page at chess programing: http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Houdini

LOL, as proof that it's not just the Talkchess geeks you show me the... Chess Programming Wiki?
Thank you for making my point .

You know, there is a world outside with many thousands of people that happily use and play chess with Houdini every day.

I strongly doubt your statement....
Dr.D