Robodini Q&A

[sockmonkey]

I really 100% agree with that. When you look in my LS ratinglist, you can see, that Critter 1.6a and Strelka 5.5 have nearly identical results (and draw-rate!) after 28000/29000 games...So I believe, that Critter 1.6a contains a lot of Strelka 5.5...

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de/

Best - Stefan

So which is more likely:

1. Critter, an engine which existed long before Ippolit and Houdini, has morphed into a reverse-engineered version of Houdini and Strelka, or

2. Houdini, an engine which only appeared after the Robbolito source code was published, with identical analyses to Robbolito in its initial versions, is (still) based on the Robbolito source code, as Richard has (once again) demonstrated.

My money's on #2. Don't let Robert Houdart's smoke and mirrors distract from the actual news.

jb

[Rebel]

While RE'ing Houdini seems to you a fun thing to do and has given you some nice forum exposure over the last 18 months, all the evidence suggests that it has killed any originality in chess engine development you previously had. Critter 0.9 was a great engine, unfortunately afterwards you've turned it into a weak Houdini clone.

At least Richard wrote his own move generator

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I really 100% agree with that. When you look in my LS ratinglist, you can see, that Critter 1.6a and Strelka 5.5 have nearly identical results (and draw-rate!) after 28000/29000 games...So I believe, that Critter 1.6a contains a lot of Strelka 5.5...

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de/

Best - Stefan

So which is more likely:

1. Critter, an engine which existed long before Ippolit and Houdini, has morphed into a reverse-engineered version of Houdini and Strelka, or

2. Houdini, an engine which only appeared after the Robbolito source code was published, with identical analyses to Robbolito in its initial versions, is (still) based on the Robbolito source code, as Richard has (once again) demonstrated.

My money's on #2. Don't let Robert Houdart's smoke and mirrors distract from the actual news.

jb

The truth always hurts but it's a prefered path in life.......
Dr.D

[Lavir]

So which is more likely:

1. Critter, an engine which existed long before Ippolit and Houdini, has morphed into a reverse-engineered version of Houdini and Strelka, or

2. Houdini, an engine which only appeared after the Robbolito source code was published, with identical analyses to Robbolito in its initial versions, is (still) based on the Robbolito source code, as Richard has (once again) demonstrated.

My money's on #2. Don't let Robert Houdart's smoke and mirrors distract from the actual news.

jb

I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive.

It is quite probable that Robert indeed started from a Robbolito source, and I personally see nothing wrong with that until you change the base in a way that it becomes after your work something different both in a tacit and explicit way, and that's what Robert has done in these years as it is obvious.

On the other hand, however, we have a guy that to produce his "advancements" obviously RE Houdini and at the same time doesn't add nothing of his own.

What do you think is worst? What is the "copying" of the two? I cannot understand how someone can blame Robert of "copying" yet at the same time insisting that Critter is "original" instead. Just because Robert started from Robbolito (but changed it greatly after) then you can shamelessly copy everything he created himself and call it fine and "original"?

It seems to me some double moral standards are at work here.

[lucasart]

Q: Robodini is a clone of Houdini3?
A: Yes, that was the intent

After your and Jury Osipov's reverse engineering of Houdini 1.5 and the production of Strelka 5, there is a strong feeling of "déja vu".

Oddly you failed to mention in your Q&A that for over 18 months you've had access to the RE Houdini 1.5 sources provided by Jury Osipov, and that this most certainly is 100 times more relevant for RE'ing Houdini 3 than your quoting some unknown Robbolito sources...

Based on past experience, let me predict the near future:
1) In a couple of weeks or months you'll release Critter 1.8 or Critter 2.
2) It will feature a nice Elo jump of, say, 40 Elo. You will feign indignation at any suggestion that the Elo jump would be in any way related to the RE of Houdini.
3) In the similarity diagram the new Critter will be very close to Houdini 3, just like Critter 1.4 and 1.6 are indistinguishable from Houdini 1.5 (and Strelka 5). Again you will feign outrage at mentioning this simple fact, claiming that the 99% similarity with Houdini is the result of using identical PST (LOL).
4) Afterwards Critter progress will once again stall... probably until the release of Houdini 4 and subsequent RE.

That's my bet... let's see in a couple of months whether I win it .

While RE'ing Houdini seems to you a fun thing to do and has given you some nice forum exposure over the last 18 months, all the evidence suggests that it has killed any originality in chess engine development you previously had. Critter 0.9 was a great engine, unfortunately afterwards you've turned it into a weak Houdini clone.

Robert

You can say all you want, change the subject etc. We all know where Houdini comes from. And yes, Robbodini would be a better name than Houdini

Once again, the proof is in the pudding. BIG TIME!

There's nothing with the fact that Houdini started as Robbolito. Everyone knows it. And now, Richard has proven it beyond all reasonable doubt (we all know that decompiling assembly code of a full blown program and rewrite it is a humongous task).

And I also think thart Richard deserves better than your contempt:
- he has once again proven his superb hacking skills, skiils that very few people on here (if not none) possess.
- his intentions are noble (just a bet, doesn't want to compete with Houdini, nor release his source code, which would expose you to more competition)
- he tried to keep it quiet (immortal forum, russian speaking section)

Now you're like Lance Armstrong, in total denial for years of overwhelming evidence accumulation. One day or the next, you'll admit. The sooner the better... Your choice!

[geots]

So which is more likely:

1. Critter, an engine which existed long before Ippolit and Houdini, has morphed into a reverse-engineered version of Houdini and Strelka, or

2. Houdini, an engine which only appeared after the Robbolito source code was published, with identical analyses to Robbolito in its initial versions, is (still) based on the Robbolito source code, as Richard has (once again) demonstrated.

My money's on #2. Don't let Robert Houdart's smoke and mirrors distract from the actual news.

jb

I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive.

It is quite probable that Robert indeed started from a Robbolito source, and I personally see nothing wrong with that until you change the base in a way that it becomes after your work something different both in a tacit and explicit way, and that's what Robert has done in these years as it is obvious.

On the other hand, however, we have a guy that to produce his "advancements" obviously RE Houdini and at the same time doesn't add nothing of his own.

What do you think is worst? What is the "copying" of the two? I cannot understand how someone can blame Robert of "copying" yet at the same time insisting that Critter is "original" instead. Just because Robert started from Robbolito (but changed it greatly after) then you can shamelessly copy everything he created himself and call it fine and "original"?

It seems to me some double moral standards are at work here.

Better than I could have said it. +100

george

[Lavir]

Now you're like Lance Armstrong, in total denial for years of overwhelming evidence accumulation. One day or the next, you'll admit. The sooner the better... Your choice!

Admit what? That he started from a Robbolito source and improved upon it? He already said that many times, and there's nothing wrong with that.

All the "matter" for someone is just if he started from the GPL source or the OPEN SOURCE. If he did the latter it is perfectly legal and it's actually what someone that provide that source (OPEN) encourages (elsewhere you don't release something open source that becomes public domain).

I really don't understand how people like you reason. If chess programming was like writing or painting that every time you produce something you factually release the "source" and so others will obviously use that "source" as a base of progress in their writing or painting (if it is important for what they have to do), what you would do? Would you call "copier" everybody that uses that knowledge for their future work?

And what would you be then? Would you like to insist that you never heard of Shakespeare, Milton, whatever and all you "create" is completely original and your own (I guess even nature is your creation then)?

I still have to understand what's all the matter here, seriously. You even call someone noble on RE the work of some other (work that he don't freely published and so he didn't want to share) to use it in its own advancement and then blame another for "originality". This would be like pretending that Milton copied Dante and yet someone that really reproduced word from word the work of another is, instead, original.

Oh well.

[zullil]

Admit what? That he started from a Robbolito source and improved upon it? He already said that many times,

Please cite or provide a link to any admission by Robert that he started from Robbolito source.

Thanks in advance.

[kranium]

Now you're like Lance Armstrong, in total denial for years of overwhelming evidence accumulation. One day or the next, you'll admit. The sooner the better... Your choice!

Admit what? That he started from a Robbolito source and improved upon it? He already said that many times, and there's nothing wrong with that.

i can't find anything more than this:

Houdini does NOT contain any Ippolit code.
Robert

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=427819

All the "matter" for someone is just if he started from the GPL source

there's plenty of evidence that this occurred as well:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38052
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 6&start=16

[Lavir]

i can't find anything more than this:

Houdini does NOT contain any Ippolit code.
Robert

Strange that you didn't quote where he explicity say that Houdini is as strong as it is only because of Robbo and Stockfish. Probably a lapsus.

Strange also that you didn't quote in the same way what Robert implied on the thread about the open source Robbo vs. the GPL one from you, which you well know since you was there.

BTW with that sentence it's obvious what Robert means. Since the point many are making is that he just copy/pasted with just good tuning of parameters, he say it's not so (and as it's obvious given the result).

there's plenty of evidence that this occurred as well:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38052
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 6&start=16

So do you think you are the only one that can from the open source achieve similar results of what you got in the GPL?

Hint: Think a little on how you are going to answer this, because the thing can fire back.