Robodini Q&A

[velmarin]

Maybe you do not understand. Adan.

I do not put my code for two reasons, I have nothing to teach,
And I do not want copied.
But my programs are free, as Ippolit spirit.

Norman, does what he wants, and attributed all.
If you study the public domain code, changes are settings Norman, name changes, ect, ect, smoke.
Its GPL lasts less than a candy in the school door.

Norman has closed code Robbolito
code that is Ivanhoe.

But Norman does not know when to shut up and want a piece of every pie.

[Lavir]

What I find the most amusing about all this thing is that it seems like all of the issue turned around on the point of if Robert actually started from a Robbo source or not, while in the meantime we have a guy who actually illegally RE a closed source program and illegally hacked a protection in the same distributing the result publicly and much probably even the sources of the same for his "friends" to use and abuse freely and masquerading the same on some "bet" [and even pretending to call-out the ego of Robert while doing so; I mean, what there is of more egocentric of doing a thing as this than for a bet to let's see how good you are?] while naturally he did all of this for his (and his "friends") benefit. I mean, there are around people so imbecile that can REALLY believe that this guy did all of this to prove how good he was or for the noble intent of "proving from whence did Robert start from [a total idiocy anyway because in any case it is anecdotal evidence and it's much probable that this guy had, as Robert said, available Strelka 5 sources to compare them, given how objectively Critter 1.6 plays almost in the same league as Strelka 5]? There are REALLY people so naive around as to think that the reason can be something else than personal benefit and that can really believe this action "noble" or "good"?

Let's be clear, because the thing has become seriously a farce around here. This guy:

1. ILLEGALLY reverse engineered closed source proprietary material
2. ILLEGALLY hacked the DRM of the same
3. On top of that he ILLEGALLY re-distributed the product PUBLICLY for everyone to use (so actually making everybody able to use the product without license)
4. Plus (if it was not enough) he will much probably (i.e. surely) ILLEGALLY distribute freely the source code for others to pillage from and "mysteriously" advance from
5. And all of this for HIS OWN (AND OTHERS) PERSONAL BENEFIT.

And here we are turning around the issue on the point of if Robert did really create some "revolutionary" idea or not in Houdini? Are you f*cking kidding me?

You see, I'm not even someone that is against hacking. I actually respect greatly scene groups, but I respect them because they REALLY do what they do for a motive that has not to do with personal gain, and surely it is not a facade. They hack programs as a challenge and to make understand many software houses that intrusive DRM just harms the legit buyer. They are not programmers or employers of others software houses that RE the sources to "steal" what others come up with, and even more they don't release publicly what they do. Actually they HATE it, and they hate people that use software for free because of them. If the hacks then become torrents etc. is because someone leaks them to the public, but they don't do it themselves and actually they try to prevent it in many cases (sometimes they don't even release a crack on certain products just for this).

So, you see, I'm not one that is against these things when they are done with a REAL purpose, but here it is just hypocrisy. The bet is just a silly facade and all is done just for personal (+ "friends") benefit. Has this guy not a will of his own that he was "forced" to prove how good he is to others? Has he not a mind of his own to at the very least (not asking much isn't it?) not agree to release the result publicly? Even if he didn't have those, does he really want to make us believe that he released the program on the Immortal forum "in the hope that there it will not attract too much publicity...". Are you really seriously kidding me? The Immortal forum that is the PRIMARY place where people go to find pirated (or any other kind) of chess software? The Immortal Forum that people go just for these kind of things? If he really wanted to agree to the bet but not really make the program found by everybody and his mom he could have published it in an unrelated forum, as a literature (or whatever) one. The bet would have been won and nobody would have know, isn't it? It would have been the same bad, but at the very last I could believe something he said.

So, in the end, I cannot understand why the issue has "suddenly" switched around, and Robert is here under accusation while it should be the other way around. Seriously people, what's wrong with this place?

I sincerely don't know what Robert wants to do about the thing but he would have all the rights to proceed legally on the issue. It can also be that he will do nothing because someone that can be so hypocrite it is already in a so low status of being than living is enough of a torture (or at last for me it would be for how I see things), but all in all I cannot grasp why people are talking of Robert here when the matter at hand is all another and a BAD thing has been done.

Just because it is Robert (the villain of turn) the victim everything goes?

[velmarin]

I quite agree with you.
My English is little,
why can not read it right.

I think this snafu's friend Richard (also admired) leaves us little room to maneuver.
If in 80 hours you can almost match Houdini 3, I wonder what others do tuning or trying to find new things.

A blow to the community.

[Rebel]

Q: Are you willing to publish source code?
A: No. Despite R1.1 being a H3 clone, it contains a lot of boilerplate code that is (c) by me. I hate the Robbodini coding style - I had to replace it with something more readable/maintainable while preserving its functionality.

Richard, how hard is this promise ?

I remember you have given your source code to Don (and perhaps others?) with the motivation to shake the top.

I think everybody knows the names of the candidates who are qualified.

And if you do, isn't that unfair competition to the rest ?

Hence my direct question to you.

[zullil]

Q: Are you willing to publish source code?
A: No. Despite R1.1 being a H3 clone, it contains a lot of boilerplate code that is (c) by me. I hate the Robbodini coding style - I had to replace it with something more readable/maintainable while preserving its functionality.

Richard, how hard is this promise ?

I remember you have given your source code to Don (and perhaps others?) with the motivation to shake the top.

I think everybody knows the names of the candidates who are qualified.

And if you do, isn't that unfair competition to the rest ?

Hence my direct question to you.

If you would like the Critter source code, I suggest that you simply politely ask Richard to provide it to you. That approach has worked for me (so that I could produce binaries optimized to run on my 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro).

[Rebel]

Q: Are you willing to publish source code?
A: No. Despite R1.1 being a H3 clone, it contains a lot of boilerplate code that is (c) by me. I hate the Robbodini coding style - I had to replace it with something more readable/maintainable while preserving its functionality.

Richard, how hard is this promise ?

I remember you have given your source code to Don (and perhaps others?) with the motivation to shake the top.

I think everybody knows the names of the candidates who are qualified.

And if you do, isn't that unfair competition to the rest ?

Hence my direct question to you.

If you would like the Critter source code, I suggest that you simply politely ask Richard to provide it to you. That approach has worked for me (so that I could produce binaries optimized to run on my 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro).

You are missing the goal of my question.

[zullil]

Q: Are you willing to publish source code?
A: No. Despite R1.1 being a H3 clone, it contains a lot of boilerplate code that is (c) by me. I hate the Robbodini coding style - I had to replace it with something more readable/maintainable while preserving its functionality.

Richard, how hard is this promise ?

I remember you have given your source code to Don (and perhaps others?) with the motivation to shake the top.

I think everybody knows the names of the candidates who are qualified.

And if you do, isn't that unfair competition to the rest ?

Hence my direct question to you.

If you would like the Critter source code, I suggest that you simply politely ask Richard to provide it to you. That approach has worked for me (so that I could produce binaries optimized to run on my 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro).

You are missing the goal of my question.

I assume your goal is to convince Richard that releasing the R1.1 code is in the same spirit of "shaking up the top" as providing Critter sources. But perhaps I misunderstood your post.

[Eelco de Groot]

Q: Are you willing to publish source code?
A: No. Despite R1.1 being a H3 clone, it contains a lot of boilerplate code that is (c) by me. I hate the Robbodini coding style - I had to replace it with something more readable/maintainable while preserving its functionality.

Richard, how hard is this promise ?

I remember you have given your source code to Don (and perhaps others?) with the motivation to shake the top.

I think everybody knows the names of the candidates who are qualified.

And if you do, isn't that unfair competition to the rest ?

Hence my direct question to you.

As far as I know the re-engineering of Houdini, specifically the code that is not public domain, added by Robert Houdart, is not illegal. A law against that would also be very difficult to enforce. Would he disclose the sources or other information that he has learned that would be a different matter and probably illegal in the EU. The moderators would again, probably delete this thread if significant disclosures were to happen and the author complained. If you are asking Richard to disclose his own sources of Critter I believe he has stated that upon request he can send the sources to programmers at least he stated he has not refused requests to do that until now. So yes, he is a bit on shaky ground with this if that is what you implied with your question Ed...

Eelco

[kranium]

Maybe you do not understand. Adan.

I do not put my code for two reasons, I have nothing to teach,
And I do not want copied.
But my programs are free, as Ippolit spirit.

Norman, does what he wants, and attributed all.
If you study the public domain code, changes are settings Norman, name changes, ect, ect, smoke.
Its GPL lasts less than a candy in the school door.

Norman has closed code Robbolito
code that is Ivanhoe.

But Norman does not know when to shut up and want a piece of every pie.

i don't understand such an vindictive and demeaning post Jose...
it's very hurtful to see it...not sure why you feel the need to belittle the efforts of others

the truth ab:
Sentinel and i worked hard to develop the ippolit.wikispaces.com released Robbolito source code for windows
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/RobboLito

at the time, we were severely ridiculed for it by the community..., (many here were calling our efforts criminal)
yet we perservered and shared all via open-source (albeit with attached GPL)

our developmment were significant, and invloved 19 public-beta releases (for testing) on Immortal
RobboLito 0.09
RobboLito 0.085g3
RobboLito 0.085e4
RobboLito 0.085e3
RobboLito 0.085e2
RobboLito 0.085e1
RobboLito 0.085e
RobboLito 0.085d12
RobboLito 0.085d11
RobboLito 0.085d10
RobboLito 0.085d9
RobboLito 0.085d8
RobboLito 0.085d7
RobboLito 0.085d6
RobboLito 0.085d5
RobboLito 0.085d4
RobboLite 0.085d3
RobboLite 0.085d2
RobboLite 0.085c5

our work included:
porting from raw unstable ippolit linux release to windows
much debugging: resolution of unhandled exception errors, etc;
the addition of pondering and ponderhit
optimization of the alignment of hash structures
different and improved bit scan functions
implementation of mersenne rand functions
new faster version of popcnt functions
cache prefetching
smooth scaling of null move
improved/corrected time management
better UCI GUI compatibility
CPU load
upper/lower bound printing
move on ponderhit
etc.
and of course, the translation from very difficult to read code to into common and easily understandable programming terms

the development history is extremely well documented, and
all this source code is freely avaialble...anyone can examine it to verify these facts


my last words on RobboLito:

i never was (and am still not) interested in 'owning' robbolito (or a piece of the pie), the suggestion is ridiculous...
a GPL was attached simply to discourage abuse

Sentinel and i developed it because it was there, and no one else was doing it.
we were not seeking recognition, and used pseudonyms exclusively...
all our releases were rife with attributions to the original programmers:
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, and Roberto Pescatore
-> on the web site, in the abundant documentation which accompanied each release,
and in the executable itself (id author field)

when Houdini was 1st released, i was very active in the CCC thread defending Houdart, and his right to release an engine based on Ippolit
the abundant evidence that links Houdini to Robbolito was not produced by me...these were third party individual efforts
it was only after repeated denials concedrning origin by R. Houdart that I chose to post links to this material, in an effort to make the truth known.

finally:
i do not object to Houdini otherwise, in fact as a programmer and a chess player, i admire it immensely, Robert has done a great job developing it...
but, i do think it's imortant that it's origins be well known (as an ippolit derivative) and not covered up or white-washed.

[rvida]

Q: Are you willing to publish source code?
A: No. Despite R1.1 being a H3 clone, it contains a lot of boilerplate code that is (c) by me. I hate the Robbodini coding style - I had to replace it with something more readable/maintainable while preserving its functionality.

Richard, how hard is this promise ?

I stand by my word - No one will see the sources of R1.1.

I remember you have given your source code to Don (and perhaps others?) with the motivation to shake the top.

I think everybody knows the names of the candidates who are qualified.

And if you do, isn't that unfair competition to the rest ?

Hence my direct question to you.

If you are talking about my own sources (Critter), it is a completely different thing. I can provide them (or refuse to provide) to whomever I want. I agree that I am a bit subjective in the selection, but so far I did not refuse anyone who is well-known and respected in the CC community when asked politely.

Edit: P.S: there are some misinformations circulating around that I had access to Strelka 5.x sources (and even providing them to Don&Larry) - both statements are false.