Corrupt CCRL, CEGT, and IPON

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi there,

I am not pride with the German chronicle in the latest century. What we do with the Jews. The Americans should be not pride too for some reasons if they look in the history too.

Our life is embossing with lies.
Not only our hobby the complete life.

Important is only to see that and to try to make the best of it without own excuses. We should stand for this what we do and not search the flight in double moral.

Enough ...
Christmas time!

I have to create the best breakfast my family will ever saw

Many bad words from my point of view to Christmas, perhaps its helps but I don't think so.

The curve ...

Fact is ...
I wish all readers here a very nice Christmas time!

Best
Frank

[gerold]

It's not practical to test all these engines. But if there is one who is the strongest among them then I think it is fair to test it. After all, Rybka Strelka, etc. were tested. To most, it doesn't matter if an engine is controversial but rather where does it stand in comparison to the other engines. After all, many people have or had at least one of these engines anyway.

I vote to test one and one only Ippolit family engine. Maybe the strongest Ivanhoe or something. That's just me though.

I am not trying to start a war of words with Robert. However, Norman Schmidt and Franklin Titus have presented evidence of shared code between Robbolito and Houdini 1.00. Kai Laskos and myself have presented information concerning the similarity of move selections between Robbolito/IvanHoe and Houdini. And then there are these words from Richard Vida:

About Houdini: I was curious too what makes Houdini so much stronger than rest of IPPO family. Disassembling an entirely unknown program is a _very_ hard task, but fortunately we have 90% of its sources and with them the task is much much easier.

I would feel very uncomfortable revealing in public what I have learned from H1.5, but take my word - almost all of the improvements are very IPPO specific and are not applicable to neither SF, Critter nor Komodo.
And some of them we already use and are not that original... e.g. rewarding safe queen contact checks in king safety evaluation (iirc I saw this already in glaurung 2.1?)

Richard

All of this makes me believe that we already are testing the strongest branch of the Ippolit family.

Plus one.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Fact:

The only proof I ever saw of Ippo being original was a paper that lacks a signature. So, I am to believe a paper by an anonymous author to be proof that a program by anonymous authors is authentic. Wow, what a lump of coal that is.


Happy Holidays to all.

Fact:

I never saw a proof that Ares and Noonian are original but nevertheless I believe they are.

Fact:

The Ippo sources are public but nobody ever pointed to a piece of stolen code.

Fact:

An author can't do more than to release the sources to proof originality.

Fact:

There is a proofen Ippo derivate in the lists: Houdini.

Merry Xmas...

[kranium]

It's not practical to test all these engines. But if there is one who is the strongest among them then I think it is fair to test it. After all, Rybka Strelka, etc. were tested. To most, it doesn't matter if an engine is controversial but rather where does it stand in comparison to the other engines. After all, many people have or had at least one of these engines anyway.

I vote to test one and one only Ippolit family engine. Maybe the strongest Ivanhoe or something. That's just me though.

I am not trying to start a war of words with Robert. However, Norman Schmidt and Franklin Titus have presented evidence of shared code between Robbolito and Houdini 1.00. Kai Laskos and myself have presented information concerning the similarity of move selections between Robbolito/IvanHoe and Houdini. And then there are these words from Richard Vida:

About Houdini: I was curious too what makes Houdini so much stronger than rest of IPPO family. Disassembling an entirely unknown program is a _very_ hard task, but fortunately we have 90% of its sources and with them the task is much much easier.

I would feel very uncomfortable revealing in public what I have learned from H1.5, but take my word - almost all of the improvements are very IPPO specific and are not applicable to neither SF, Critter nor Komodo.
And some of them we already use and are not that original... e.g. rewarding safe queen contact checks in king safety evaluation (iirc I saw this already in glaurung 2.1?)

Richard

All of this makes me believe that we already are testing the strongest branch of the Ippolit family.

yes indeed...
of course all the info you quote above (as evidence of your apparent 'inclusiveness' ) did not exist and was not yet posted in 2009 or 2010 (the period to which i'm referring) was it?

and during that time, you and your cronies have simply issued one lame excuse after another to protect Rybka at #1, deny responsibility, and justify your actions.
(i won't list them here, list would far too extensive and ridiculous)

but ok, apparently today, it has all worked out...you apparently (accidentally/unknowingly) are now testing an engine that has Ippolit roots...!
amazing coincidence, and how ironic!

but sad/disappointing to see you continuing in your hypocritical/corrupt ways Adam?
according to the proof you yourself provide above concerning Houdini's origins...
aren't you now testing/listing an engine (not to mention Rybka) that has clearly plagiarized open source GPL'd code...?

or is there some way you can 'spin' things to make this seem acceptable as well?

[kranium]

I am not trying to start a war of words with Robert.

Adam-
i'm certainly aware that you are probably loathe to start any trouble with the 'author?' of Houdini...(hence the disclaimer)

i don't really understand why, but I can only guess:

you don't want to risk the cozy relationship developing, or the free copies you and the rest may be receiving?
(or did you all pay for Houdini 2.0?)

that being said, perhaps the CCRL simply doing the right thing with spine/conviction would be appropriate?
i.e. fight the war...risk/accept any consequence!

[Adam Hair]

It's not practical to test all these engines. But if there is one who is the strongest among them then I think it is fair to test it. After all, Rybka Strelka, etc. were tested. To most, it doesn't matter if an engine is controversial but rather where does it stand in comparison to the other engines. After all, many people have or had at least one of these engines anyway.

I vote to test one and one only Ippolit family engine. Maybe the strongest Ivanhoe or something. That's just me though.

I am not trying to start a war of words with Robert. However, Norman Schmidt and Franklin Titus have presented evidence of shared code between Robbolito and Houdini 1.00. Kai Laskos and myself have presented information concerning the similarity of move selections between Robbolito/IvanHoe and Houdini. And then there are these words from Richard Vida:

About Houdini: I was curious too what makes Houdini so much stronger than rest of IPPO family. Disassembling an entirely unknown program is a _very_ hard task, but fortunately we have 90% of its sources and with them the task is much much easier.

I would feel very uncomfortable revealing in public what I have learned from H1.5, but take my word - almost all of the improvements are very IPPO specific and are not applicable to neither SF, Critter nor Komodo.
And some of them we already use and are not that original... e.g. rewarding safe queen contact checks in king safety evaluation (iirc I saw this already in glaurung 2.1?)

Richard

All of this makes me believe that we already are testing the strongest branch of the Ippolit family.

yes indeed...
of course all the info you quote above (as evidence of your apparent 'inclusiveness' ) did not exist and was not yet posted in 2009 or 2010 (the period to which i'm referring) was it?

and during that time, you and your cronies have simply issued one lame excuse after another to protect Rybka at #1, deny responsibility, and justify your actions.
(i won't list them here, list would far too extensive and ridiculous)

but ok, apparently today, it has all worked out...you apparently (accidentally/unknowingly) are now testing an engine that has Ippolit roots...!
amazing coincidence, and how ironic!

but sad/disappointing to see you continuing in your hypocritical/corrupt ways Adam?
according to the proof you yourself provide above concerning Houdini's origins...
aren't you now testing/listing an engine (not to mention Rybka) that has clearly plagiarized open source GPL'd code...?

or is there some way you can 'spin' things to make this seem acceptable as well?

Hello Norman,

You will have a very hard time constructing a list of how I have tried to protect Rybka.

I have had no interest in trying to cut Vas' balls off, but he appears to me to have crossed an ethical line (as deemed by my way of thinking) and I have voiced this opinion. I also have spoken up when I felt that certain arguments disputing some of the evidence presented against Rybka were insufficient.

I personally tested Houdini 1.5a because Rybka was on the list. If one was on the list, then the other should be. My preference, removing both engines from the lists, is shared by a very small minority of the whole CCC community.

As for engines in the Ippolit family (excluding Houdini), I have no interest in supporting the main trunk of the family tree. Nobody is putting their identity behind IvanHoe. I already voiced how I feel and that will not change.

Adam

[lkaufman]

For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your characterization of these three fine groups as "corrupt", I do agree that one (and only one) Ivanhoe does deserve to be included on the rating lists.
I am reasonably sure that it will occupy fourth place (assuming one engine per author, single core only). Based on our own testing, I would expect the lists to read Houdini (1.5 or 2.0), Komodo 4, Critter 1.2, Ivanhoe (any recent version), Rybka 4.1, Stockfish 2.1.1.

[geots]

For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your characterization of these three fine groups as "corrupt", I do agree that one (and only one) Ivanhoe does deserve to be included on the rating lists.
I am reasonably sure that it will occupy fourth place (assuming one engine per author, single core only). Based on our own testing, I would expect the lists to read Houdini (1.5 or 2.0), Komodo 4, Critter 1.2, Ivanhoe (any recent version), Rybka 4.1, Stockfish 2.1.1.

Larry, you better go back and take another shot at that list!

george

[Adam Hair]

I am not trying to start a war of words with Robert.

Adam-
i'm certainly aware that you are probably loathe to start any trouble with the 'author?' of Houdini...(hence the disclaimer)

i don't really understand why, but I can only guess:

you don't want to risk the cozy relationship developing, or the free copies you and the rest may be receiving?
(or did you all pay for Houdini 2.0?)

that being said, perhaps the CCRL simply doing the right thing with spine/conviction would be appropriate?
i.e. fight the war...risk/accept any consequence!

Somehow I missed this pleasant little post from you.

I do not own a copy of Houdini 2.0. I decided, for myself, not to test it. Consider it a one man boycott.

As far as not wanting to start a war of words with Robert, I know it would go the same as everybody else's exchanges with him. Besides, Norman, if I was worried about upsetting any sort of cozy arrangement, I would keep my mouth shut. The fact of the matter is that I have no cozy arrangement with any author. I do have what I consider a friendship with one author, but his engine is not commercial. Basically, I have no entanglement with the community of authors. I prefer it this way. It allows me to treat all authors equally, and it also allows me to avoid supporting an author if, by my own determination, I think it is warranted. In other words, I do as I please and not as someone else would have me do. I do take the general opinion of the authors quite seriously, but even so I choose my course.

[lkaufman]

For what it's worth, although I strongly disagree with your characterization of these three fine groups as "corrupt", I do agree that one (and only one) Ivanhoe does deserve to be included on the rating lists.
I am reasonably sure that it will occupy fourth place (assuming one engine per author, single core only). Based on our own testing, I would expect the lists to read Houdini (1.5 or 2.0), Komodo 4, Critter 1.2, Ivanhoe (any recent version), Rybka 4.1, Stockfish 2.1.1.

Larry, you better go back and take another shot at that list!

george

Yes, I see that Rybka 4.1 is a bit above Critter 1.2 on the lists now. I think that Critter 1.2, Rybka 4.1, and recent Ivanhoe versions are all so close in strength that they could end up in any order on any given list. So Ivanhoe could really be third, fourth, or fifth.