4th Mini tour 70min 1core started...

[Laskos]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

Really? Where did it come from and who is responsible for it?

I am sure in the Southern Hemisphere there are no anonymous works from prehistory to these days, sure not on CCRL.

Kai

[Graham Banks]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

Really? Where did it come from and who is responsible for it?

I am sure in the Southern Hemisphere there are no anonymous works from prehistory to these days, sure not on CCRL.

Kai

CCRL has nothing to do with what I asked, dickhead! Grow up and show some sort of maturity!

[mar]

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

I didn't mean to start a flamewar. From a quick look at the original Ippolit code, it looked very artificial. So the first thing that comes up to mind is that it was either based on RE of another engine (as VR originally claimed if my memory serves well) or that it was someone's joke, perhaps releasing it after running the whole thing (which one?) through a preprocessor. I think there are many who would like to know its true origin as neither "theory" explains that. It certainly didn't fall out of the sky. Until then one can't say whether it's "clean" or not. That's why I was asking.

[lucasart]

The games you published above strongly suggest that you are using Houdini 2.0c with a pirate license, resulting in a 150 Elo weaker engine.

Please do not refer to software copyright infringment as "piracy". This word is pure propaganda, and its improper use to the world of copyright is the result of mega-corporations and copyright owners's lobbies and media/population control. Here's what the FSF has to say about it

Code: Select all

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

Just call it an "illegal copy" of Houdini

[mcostalba]

For sure I cannot be count among the Houdini fans, there are a lot of things that I don't like about it:

1) Picking free public domain sources, modifying them and closing afterwards.

2) Being (pathetically) elusive regarding the origin of Houdini. I understand that he has some business to protect and that blatantly lie can be very dangerous in the long term (as we all have learn very well), nevertheless playing with the words every time is asked about this seems very poor to me.

But at the same time I really dont' understand why people is blaming if Houdart points to an illegal copy of his engine used in some public (or at list publicly released) list. He has all the rights to do so. Instead I see this thread spammed with silliness by clearly envy /anger people that, blinded by their mediocrity, shot at him like a way to force their own work to a level where it doesn't belong.

All in all a clear and sad example of how human things works and have worked since thousand years....

[beram]

Well said

[marijan]

[Event "4th Mini tournament 70min 1core"]
[Site "i3 370 M 2.4 GHz"]
[Date "2012.02.11"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Critter14"]
[Black "DeepJunior125"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackElo "2786"]
[ECO "C41"]
[Opening "Philidor"]
[Time "11:15:40"]
[Variation "Berger Variation"]
[WhiteElo "2965"]
[TimeControl "30/3000:1200"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "124"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Be7 5. Nc3 d6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Bd7
8. Nxc6 Bxc6 9. Qd3 {+0.26/21 204} O-O {-0.35/19 111} 10. Rd1 {+0.27/20
133} Bxb5 {-0.35/20 212} 11. Qxb5 {+0.27/22 133} Qc8 {-0.36/21 151} 12. Bf4
{+0.25/21 155} c6 {-0.34/20 77} 13. Qb3 {+0.26/21 121} Rd8 {-0.31/20 166}
14. Rd3 {+0.27/21 132} Ng4 {-0.12/19 254} 15. a4 {+0.28/21 132} Ne5
{-0.07/20 98} 16. Rd2 {+0.35/22 132} Qe6 {-0.04/20 87} 17. Qxe6 {+0.34/24
113} fxe6 {-0.01/22 112} 18. Bxe5 {+0.34/26 133} dxe5 {+0.01/22 64} 19.
Rad1 {+0.35/27 133} Rxd2 {-0.02/23 178} 20. Rxd2 {+0.36/25 0} Kf8 {-0.02/23
546} 21. Kf1 {+0.35/25 147} Ke8 {-0.05/22 131} 22. Rd3 {+0.37/25 167} h5
{-0.01/19 85} 23. Ke2 {+0.36/23 118} a5 {0.00/20 181} 24. Nb1 {+0.51/24
148} b5 {0.00/21 66} 25. Nd2 {+0.35/23 157} bxa4 {-0.06/20 68} 26. Nc4
{+0.55/25 146} Rb8 {-0.11/22 55} 27. Rd1 {+0.51/25 146} Rb4 {-0.11/23 105}
28. Kd3 {+0.51/23 1} Rb5 {-0.34/24 81} 29. Ra1 {+0.66/25 179} a3 {-0.30/23
39} 30. Nxa3 {+0.66/27 245} Bxa3 {-0.57/23 73} 31. Rxa3 {+0.66/27 43} Ke7
{-0.67/22 32} 32. b3 {+0.66/26 41} Kf6 {-0.91/24 80} 33. c4 {+0.94/25 40}
Rb7 {-1.04/25 48} 34. Kc2 {+0.91/25 60} Ra7 {-0.96/24 75} 35. b4 {+1.18/22
34} a4 {-0.96/23 15} 36. Kb2 {+1.08/24 35} Rd7 {-0.96/23 61} 37. Kc3
{+1.08/24 34} Rd1 {-1.11/23 80} 38. Rxa4 {+1.08/21 0} Rc1+ {-1.10/23 25}
39. Kd3 {+1.08/24 32} Rd1+ {-1.10/23 27} 40. Kc2 {+1.05/26 31} Rf1
{-1.05/23 42} 41. b5 {+1.05/25 30} Rxf2+ {-0.94/22 32} 42. Kc3 {+1.16/25
29} cxb5 {-0.94/23 20} 43. cxb5 {+1.16/24 0} Ke7 {-0.95/23 16} 44. Ra7+
{+1.23/24 23} Kd6 {-0.60/20 12} 45. Rxg7 {+1.28/25 27} Re2 {-0.61/21 10}
46. b6 {+2.48/21 25} Re3+ {-0.60/20 11} 47. Kd2 {+2.48/20 0} Rxe4 {-1.07/24
60} 48. b7 {+5.07/16 25} Rb4 {-5.22/24 211} 49. h4 {+4.51/15 0} e4
{-5.20/24 133} 50. g4 {+5.89/16 16} e3+ {-5.20/23 26} 51. Kxe3 {+6.43/16 6}
Rb3+ {-5.20/22 12} 52. Ke4 {+8.30/16 8} hxg4 {-5.22/22 19} 53. h5
{+11.71/15 23} g3 {-5.22/22 18} 54. h6 {+11.75/17 6} g2 {-5.30/22 25} 55.
h7 {+11.87/18 6} Rb4+ {-5.32/22 24} 56. Kf3 {+12.60/19 22} Rxb7 {-5.30/19
5} 57. h8=Q {+11.87/16 0} Rxg7 {-5.30/15 1} 58. Qxg7 {+M12/22 6} Kd5
{-5.32/20 3} 59. Qxg2 {+M10/26 21} e5 {-5.39/20 6} 60. Qd2+ {+M8/30 18} Kc6
{-M9/20 8} 61. Ke4 {+M7/40 16} Kc5 {-M7/19 2} 62. Kxe5 {+M6/64 12} Kc6
{-M6/18 3 Black resigns} 1-0

[Laskos]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

Really? Where did it come from and who is responsible for it?

I am sure in the Southern Hemisphere there are no anonymous works from prehistory to these days, sure not on CCRL.

Kai

CCRL has nothing to do with what I asked, dickhead! Grow up and show some sort of maturity!

Are you well there breeding with all sorts of marsupials? CCRL does have a policy exactly in your, marsupial sense.

Kai

[rvida]

so i'm really surprised (and disappointed) to see you defending Houdini, which appears to be anything but an 'original engine',
and which is in fact is illegal according to the terms of the GPL...

Hi Norman,

I'm afraid you misunderstood. When I wrote "it is not a stolen work of others", I was referring to Ippolit, not Houdini.

I am very well aware of Houdini's origin, I have no doubt it began its life as Robbolito. But I think the PD vs. GPL case is not entirely clear. To prove a violation of GPL, you need to find substantial pieces of code in Houdini which are also present in the GPL version of Robbolito but not in the PD version. IMO the %I64u stuff and the use of timeBeginPeriod() and timeEndPeriod() functions are not enough.

[kranium]

so i'm really surprised (and disappointed) to see you defending Houdini, which appears to be anything but an 'original engine',
and which is in fact is illegal according to the terms of the GPL...

Hi Norman,

I'm afraid you misunderstood. When I wrote "it is not a stolen work of others", I was referring to Ippolit, not Houdini.

I am very well aware of Houdini's origin, I have no doubt it began its life as Robbolito. But I think the PD vs. GPL case is not entirely clear. To prove a violation of GPL, you need to find substantial pieces of code in Houdini which are also present in the GPL version of Robbolito but not in the PD version. IMO the %I64u stuff and the use of timeBeginPeriod() and timeEndPeriod() functions are not enough.

there is more of course...
for ex: show_banner() function, just as i wrote it...
the order of main () functions calls matches exactly...(very different than in ippolit_0080 and subsequent wikispaces releases)
the exact match and order of function calls corresponds exactly...
etc.

if in doubt, please read this very closely (starting with KLO's code comparisons on page 2):
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1647
all (none) of which can not be mere 'coincidence'

but i'm not at all interested in attempting to 'prove' plagiarism in a court of law...
that should be that task of FSF, IMO...
and what already exists and has been presented is compelling,
and more than enough to completely convince me and many others.

whether or not there's actually enough to convince a court of law doesn't concern me,
and i'm certainly not going to waste my time/energy to provide more...
it's clear no one really cares anyway.

(just like the fact that many don't care about Rybka's origins)
isn't accountability and forthrightness concerning these chess programs (especially commercial ones) important?

why then are they being sold and supported by users here?
and tested/promoted by the major rating groups?