Robodini Q&A

[velmarin]

for Kranium:

Code: Select all

You attacked me free in all forums.
And do not miss an opportunity to proclaim something that does not belong, every time you do that,
undermines what others do,
simply never answer in the threads, always drops his sentence.
Its GPL is smoke. You have no right to criticize other projects,
Its GPL, the GPL Norman, Robbolito GPL, do not make me laugh.

[bob]

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

I could not agree more. People like Robert H are portrayed as villains. Let's assume Robert started with Ippo source, and has improved it by nearly 150 Elo, and even more on big hardware. He is a villain. Other authors pillage Ippo source code, pillage stockfish source code, and use ideas and modified code in their own engines. They are original engine heroes !! And in the case of Ippo, assuming that it started off life as some reverse engineered Rybka, is proprietary code that those original engine heroes were never meant to see, but they seem to have no moral objection to pillaging it. And those same original engine heroes, on their moral high ground, would have no problem in wanting to get details of Richard's reverse engineered Houdini closed proprietray source code.

Computer chess is a real mess now, of that there is no doubt.

In terms of Houdini, what are the facts ? Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Show me original Houdini source code side by side with Ippo source code. Then we will see the facts. And while we are at it, let's also get some other commercial engine original sources and compare them too. I wonder what we would find. Maye something, maybe nothing.

The houdini issue has been shown with 100% clarity on open-chess. Direct comparison of houdini ASM vs Robolito ASM. Zero doubt.

[Modern Times]

The houdini issue has been shown with 100% clarity on open-chess. Direct comparison of houdini ASM vs Robolito ASM. Zero doubt.

Thanks, I don't visit that forum.

But that is not a comparison of original source code. I'm pedantic I know in only accepting original source code comparisons as the truth, but that is my right. If other people are happy with ASM, good for them.

[Sven]

The houdini issue has been shown with 100% clarity on open-chess. Direct comparison of houdini ASM vs Robolito ASM. Zero doubt.

Thanks, I don't visit that forum.

But that is not a comparison of original source code. I'm pedantic I know in only accepting original source code comparisons as the truth, but that is my right. If other people are happy with ASM, good for them.

Robbolito source code was part of that OpenChess article, too.

Sven

[gerold]

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

I could not agree more. People like Robert H are portrayed as villains. Let's assume Robert started with Ippo source, and has improved it by nearly 150 Elo, and even more on big hardware. He is a villain. Other authors pillage Ippo source code, pillage stockfish source code, and use ideas and modified code in their own engines. They are original engine heroes !! And in the case of Ippo, assuming that it started off life as some reverse engineered Rybka, is proprietary code that those original engine heroes were never meant to see, but they seem to have no moral objection to pillaging it. And those same original engine heroes, on their moral high ground, would have no problem in wanting to get details of Richard's reverse engineered Houdini closed proprietray source code.

Computer chess is a real mess now, of that there is no doubt.

In terms of Houdini, what are the facts ? Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Show me original Houdini source code side by side with Ippo source code. Then we will see the facts. And while we are at it, let's also get some other commercial engine original sources and compare them too. I wonder what we would find. Maye something, maybe nothing.

The houdini issue has been shown with 100% clarity on open-chess. Direct comparison of houdini ASM vs Robolito ASM. Zero doubt.

Robert do you have any idea how much Crafty code is in Robolito.
Best,
Gerold.

[hgm]

So is it allowed if I get public domain code published by unknown people, add afew things, and re-publish the whole as GPL under my name? ...

Indeed, this is fully allowed. Of course the original public domain code will not be protected in any way by this, because it is also available without licence, and people using it will derive their right to do so from that.

This is why there is no need to make a separation. The GPL you would stamp on it under your name would not have any meaning for the parts of the code that you own the copyright on in the first place. One cannot attach conditions of use on other people's property.

But everything you would have altered or added will be owned by you, and it is your right to attach any licence on it that you want. People who would copy those changes and additions in violation of the licece you attached would infringe on your copyright. Such people are code thiefs, plain and simple.

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

OK, thanks. For one moment I had the impression you were planning to shake the tree again for progress reasons.

[Rebel]

Hi Eelco,

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.

From the Wikipedia:

Article 6 of the 1991 EU Computer Programs Directive allows reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability, but prohibits it for the purposes of creating a competing product, and also prohibits the public release of information obtained through reverse engineering of software.

So Richard as an EU citizen already broke EU law publicing Robodini.

[Houdini]

So Richard as an EU citizen already broke EU law publicing Robodini.

Of course.
Likewise for all the information Richard previously released on this and other forums about the RE of Houdini 1.5.
Likewise for all Critter versions that have appeared after Richard's and Jury Osipov's RE of Houdini 1.5, including OpenCritter 1.1.37, of which can rather easily be demonstrated that it contains numerous elements of Houdini 1.5 that could only have been obtained by RE.

Furthermore it is mind-boggling that the discussion of the RE results of Houdini (or of any other engine, for that matter) is not only allowed on this forum, but often even encouraged and applauded. See the adjacent thread where, once again, several people including Larry Kaufman push Richard to discuss openly the findings of the RE of Houdini 3.

If ever it comes to it, this forum will be a goldmine for providing proof of misbehavior. A bon entendeur, salut!

Robert

[Lavir]

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.

Then you know badly [btw Ed seems to already have shown you]

And apart RE the DRM was also hacked, and this is clearly illegal, especially if you distribute the hack to the public.

I cannot really understand how someone can think that what has been done can be legal in any way.