how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[Thomas Mayer]

Hi Robert,

well as far as I know the other thread is moved/deleted. Anyway, if I got you right in that thread then Houdini in the beginning started with the source of Robbolito 0.85f1 which is according to it's license in the public domain. Can you confirm that ?

Greets, Thomas

The actual version it was derived from was one of Norman's versions (either 0.085g3 or 0.09, I don't know). This was already discovered more than a year ago in a thread in open-chess.org.

Hi Pablo,

well, that was my opinion too, but Robert denys that completely... In fact we will never get the source, so we will never know for sure. It's a bit like the Rybka-Fruit case, a lot of indices, but the author completely denies...

Greets, Thomas

[Thomas Mayer]

Then, maybe, you'd stop claiming "complete originality" and get back to facts as you ORIGINALLY stated them...

Apparently every of my answers generates a diarrhea of further posts with factual mistakes and unproven claims, by people that don't read what I actually write, and instead use their fantasy...

Let me repeat one final time that I have ALWAYS said the following:
"Without many ideas and techniques from the open source chess engines Ippolit and Stockfish, Houdini would not nearly be as strong as it is now."
If that for you is a "claim of complete originality", so be it.

Robert

Robert, you know that there is a big big difference. All programs are based on a lot of ideas of a lot of persons.

Just make one simple statemtent:

a) Houdini starts or shares a lot of code with engine XXXXXX
b) Houdini is completely original and does not share any code with any other engine.

if a) is the case, fill out XXXXXX. As long the license of XXXXXX is public domain or something equivalent, there is no legal issue as long XXXXX is legal as well. Only consequence: you can't play at programmers tournaments like CCT or WCCC which rules clearly wants original engines.
When b) is the case there is no restriction at all, but if you might enter one of the above mentioned tournaments it's clear that you would have to follow the rules that in case of strong indices that code might be copied you have to show proof (e.g. source code) that it is original.

So why can't you make such a clear statement ? At least from my side - and I believe as well from a lot of others - this nonsense would stop, hopefully at least for some time.

Greets, Thomas

[rvida]

Hi Richard,

no doubt about it.

What should a rating list do with it in your opinion?

The SWCR is very good as it is. It was a right decision to include Houdini (despite its origin), and it was a right thing to not exclude Rybka. Please don't give up just because of stupid wars in our community.

P.S. Did you consider making a poll about the future of SWCR?

[Houdini]

Robert, you know that there is a big big difference. All programs are based on a lot of ideas of a lot of persons.

Just make one simple statemtent:

a) Houdini starts or shares a lot of code with engine XXXXXX
b) Houdini is completely original and does not share any code with any other engine.

if a) is the case, fill out XXXXXX. As long the license of XXXXXX is public domain or something equivalent, there is no legal issue as long XXXXX is legal as well. Only consequence: you can't play at programmers tournaments like CCT or WCCC which rules clearly wants original engines.
When b) is the case there is no restriction at all, but if you might enter one of the above mentioned tournaments it's clear that you would have to follow the rules that in case of strong indices that code might be copied you have to show proof (e.g. source code) that it is original.

So why can't you make such a clear statement ?

Greets, Thomas

LOL, the number of times I get asked "to make a simple statement" is quite astonishing.
And after I make that simple statement, people will
A) misread it;
B) start arguing about the exact wording of my simple statement;
C) don't believe it;
D) want me to make another simple statement five minutes later.

All this is really without a lot of value, I'm not very much interested in convincing the Houdini-obsessed people like Peter Skinner, Bob "Puke..." Hyatt or Frank Quisinsky who intrude and disturb every single thread about Houdini.
Elbert Hubbard said it like this: "Never explain, your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway."

I'm also not very much interested in participating in ICGA tournaments or other events like the Leiden tournament. For me this kind of tournament, with actual human operators playing the engine's moves on a real chess board, is a thing of the past without much relevance.

The only thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that Houdini is a legal engine. I would not have gone commercial if I had any doubt about that.

Robert

[LucenaTheLucid]

I knew Robert Houdart was a pretty good chess programmer... but I didn't know he was a dancer too!

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hi Robert,

well as far as I know the other thread is moved/deleted. Anyway, if I got you right in that thread then Houdini in the beginning started with the source of Robbolito 0.85f1 which is according to it's license in the public domain. Can you confirm that ?

Greets, Thomas

The actual version it was derived from was one of Norman's versions (either 0.085g3 or 0.09, I don't know). This was already discovered more than a year ago in a thread in open-chess.org.

Hi Pablo,

well, that was my opinion too, but Robert denys that completely... In fact we will never get the source, so we will never know for sure. It's a bit like the Rybka-Fruit case, a lot of indices, but the author completely denies...

Greets, Thomas

At least Houdini's author bothers to answer and communicate every now and then....Vasik was silent like a dead rotten fish....
Dr.D

[Terry McCracken]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.

Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".

Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.

Do you know what your actions say?

Yes, I am sick of the witch hunts and the BS that goes with it on CCC. You clowns are bored with Rybka so you need a new target....

Clowns, Witch-Hunts? DENIAL So be it...

[Terry McCracken]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.

If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.

Kai

If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...

This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.

Kai

I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...

The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.

Kai

Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO

Then you're clued out or in denial. Take your pick.

Really,

Then maybe you can tell me the person who Robert H. stole code from, and if the person you name is making the same charge that Robert stole code.............Waiting............

The Hackers that stole from Rybka to make their perverse point. The aliases are listed at their site.

Any other questions?

[K I Hyams]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.

Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".

Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.

From the charter:
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
........................................................ Are not flagrant commercial exhortations.

It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result.

As there is no more evidence that Aquarium is “the best GUI” than there is that Pepsi is the best Cola, when either claim is made by the manufacturer, it can be classified in the “flagrant commercial exhortations” category

Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price,

This is an advertising statement, how else can it be classified, when made by the manufacturer? As such, it also falls within the category of "flagrant commercial exhortations".

I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money.

What he admits to be his opinion is tendentious and when made by the manufacturer of the product, can only be considered to be an advertisement that, once again, falls within the category of “flagrant commercial exhortations”.

Three flagrant exhortations within a 5 sentence announcement. A bit rich.

[Thomas Mayer]

Robert, you know that there is a big big difference. All programs are based on a lot of ideas of a lot of persons.

Just make one simple statemtent:

a) Houdini starts or shares a lot of code with engine XXXXXX
b) Houdini is completely original and does not share any code with any other engine.

if a) is the case, fill out XXXXXX. As long the license of XXXXXX is public domain or something equivalent, there is no legal issue as long XXXXX is legal as well. Only consequence: you can't play at programmers tournaments like CCT or WCCC which rules clearly wants original engines.
When b) is the case there is no restriction at all, but if you might enter one of the above mentioned tournaments it's clear that you would have to follow the rules that in case of strong indices that code might be copied you have to show proof (e.g. source code) that it is original.

So why can't you make such a clear statement ?

Greets, Thomas

LOL, the number of times I get asked "to make a simple statement" is quite astonishing.
And after I make that simple statement, people will
A) misread it;
B) start arguing about the exact wording of my simple statement;
C) don't believe it;
D) want me to make another simple statement five minutes later.

All this is really without a lot of value, I'm not very much interested in convincing the Houdini-obsessed people like Peter Skinner, Bob "Puke..." Hyatt or Frank Quisinsky who intrude and disturb every single thread about Houdini.
Elbert Hubbard said it like this: "Never explain, your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway."

I'm also not very much interested in participating in ICGA tournaments or other events like the Leiden tournament. For me this kind of tournament, with actual human operators playing the engine's moves on a real chess board, is a thing of the past without much relevance.

The only thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that Houdini is a legal engine. I would not have gone commercial if I had any doubt about that.

Robert

hehe, of course this keeps a) and b) in the possibility range... Well, you don't want to answer with a simple are or b, fair enough. In my opinion legality is currently not in question, neither a) nor b) would change here anything.

Greets, Thomas