Robodini Q&A

[mcostalba]

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

I really think it is a lack of self-control for you to subtly threat legal consequences. I can understand you feel very hungry, but treating Richard as a me-to cloner is a bit exaggerated.

Richard Vida is one of the most talented guy in this community, and not only because of Critter ELO (there are other very strong engine authors that I consider average good-will people, but no more). You don't take part in technical discussions so I was not able to have an opinion on you, but nevertheless increasing the top engine of such amount as you did in the last release it is absolutely not trivial and your result is amazing. So it is a pity to see these fights among top developers.

You surely introduced good novelties in H3 and I fully understand that you hate these novelties to be RE and added in other engines but this is the rule of the game we all have chosen to play. This is the rule of the game you have chosen to play. A bon entendeur, salut!

[Lavir]

You surely introduced good novelties in H3 and I fully understand that you hate these novelties to be RE and added in other engines but this is the rule of the game we all have chosen to play. This is the rule of the game you have chosen to play. A bon entendeur, salut!

It's the rule of the game that someone that does an illegal act gets the crown of the hero? Tell me.

I't also the rule of the game that someone that commit the illegal action is as if nothing happened while the victim of the action is considered instead the "bad"?

It is even more the "rule of the game" that you can also clearly take the Mick/Mickey out of the one you did it to top it off?

One can also stand the fact that RE is the rule of the game, as you say, but seeing the guy that commits it even become hailed as the performer of a noble action plus mick/mickey the victim on why he did it, it seems a bit too much, don't you think?

As I said previously, usually the most important thing is not really what you do, but HOW you do it.

EDIT: And this to be clear. I don't say this things to defend Robert (apart that he doesn't need it, I think). I would say the same exact things if it happened to ANYBODY else. I just didn't like how the thing was done and the hypocrisy behind it and also in this forum concerning the issue by some people. Having it happened to Don, Robert, Ed or anybody's else I would have said the same.

[mcostalba]

It's the rule of the game that someone that does an illegal act gets the crown of the hero? Tell me.

Don't want to be rude, but I really don't have any interest in joining a void words discussion with you or someone else that is not really involved in what he is talking about. My post was directed to Robert and of course I am interested in a possible Robert's answer (in case in decided to do so), so please take no offence, but I won't follow up your "questions".

[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.

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

Sven

I'll take your word for it without looking, but I bet there is no original Houdini source code compared to it side by side..

Edit: but all said and done, I just don't care about this. If Robert did use Robbo as a stating point, good on him. It is often smart not to re-invent the wheel. Of course some authors gain no satisfaction from studying or using other code, and do want to to everything from scratch. All credit to them also.

[Eelco de Groot]

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.

The re-engineering I don't see as illegal also by Ed's quote. So I don't agree. The Digital Rights to this program could still be contested, by the Rybka programmer for instance or the Robbolito programmer(s) if he/they ever comes forward. So I don't think what I said is bad information. Robodini is not sold so I don't think it is a competing product as seems the meaning here in Ed's quote. Commercial programs that use code obtained through RE and if that code was made by Robert Houdart, would be clearly illegal, but if they just use information that they did not re engineer themselves, this is not enforceable. The program itself is not necessarily useful information, if it exactly has the same output as Houdini, but indirectly yes, you could see this as information about Houdini's program, or a form of piracy. And I clearly had a reserve against any other information that could be leaked from the RE or the discussions in public.

Regards, Eelco

[Lavir]

It's the rule of the game that someone that does an illegal act gets the crown of the hero? Tell me.

Don't want to be rude, but I really don't have any interest in joining a void words discussion with you or someone else that is not really involved in what he is talking about. My post was directed to Robert and of course I am interested in a possible Robert's answer (in case in decided to do so), so please take no offence, but I won't follow up your "questions".

Then if you are not interested in hearing anybody's else but the one you make the question use a PM.

This is a board forum and if you pose a question OPENLY you are expected to be OPEN to discussion in case ANYBODY reply. Moreover if you didn't want to reply you could simply have not done so instead of faking apology to being rude yet being it the same.

P.S: My "questions" were perfectly plausible and I know perfectly you have read them. It's just that since Richard is your friend you probably have to defend him whatever he does.

[Lavir]

The re-engineering I don't see as illegal also by Ed's quote. So I don't agree. The Digital Rights to this program could still be contested, by the Rybka programmer for instance or the Robbolito programmer(s) if he/they ever comes forward. So I don't think what I said is bad information. Robodini is not sold so I don't think it is a competing product as seems the meaning here in Ed's quote. Commercial programs that use code obtained through RE and made by Robert Houdart, would be clearly illegal, but if they just use information that they did not re engineer themselves, this is not enforceable. The program it self is not necessarily useful information, if it exactly has the same output as Houdini, but indirectly yes, you could see this as information about Houdini's program. And I clearly had a reserve against any other information that could be leaked from the RE or the discussions in public.

Regards, Eelco

1. The post of Ed clearly say that you cannot public the result of RE and even more that you can RE only under certain circumstances (that are not clearly for personal benefit as it is said openly btw).

2. Houdini even if having 100% proof of being base on Robbo still contains much code that it's legally proprietary of Houdart, and on those code you can put every license you want and that code cannot be RE. Since the code is obviously mixed if you RE the whole you RE also that code, hence an illegal action as of point 1.

3. DRM is not tied to the type of content. If you put a restriction to the use then that restriction must be adhered to. If you don't adhere to it you commit an illegal action and even more you do so if you allow others to not adhere to the same.

[Don]

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

I really think it is a lack of self-control for you to subtly threat legal consequences. I can understand you feel very hungry, but treating Richard as a me-to cloner is a bit exaggerated.

Richard Vida is one of the most talented guy in this community, and not only because of Critter ELO (there are other very strong engine authors that I consider average good-will people, but no more). You don't take part in technical discussions so I was not able to have an opinion on you, but nevertheless increasing the top engine of such amount as you did in the last release it is absolutely not trivial and your result is amazing. So it is a pity to see these fights among top developers.

You surely introduced good novelties in H3 and I fully understand that you hate these novelties to be RE and added in other engines but this is the rule of the game we all have chosen to play. This is the rule of the game you have chosen to play. A bon entendeur, salut!

I don't really expect the stuff in Komodo that is unique to be mine forever. Even if I don't publish them people will either figure out the ideas for themselves, deduce them from observation (only a few can be seen this way) or someone will reverse engineer it. Some ideas I have shared with trusted friends and they may appear in open source or get spread in other ways.

I don't really know where the line is drawn with respect to computer chess ideas. I always thought ideas had to be patented to be protected, not copyrighted. Is that right or wrong? Does anyone know?

I also find it kind of weird that you can take public domain code, assuming no licence was put on it, and then copyright it as Houdart has done. And I don't understand how the original producer of the public domain code is not now liable. It's sort of like if I have a great idea and make some widgets, then someone else actually patents my ideas, they can sue me!

I'm not sure how this works, but it seems to me that Robert has the right to sue the Ippolit people (if he actually could figure out who they) are for violation of his copyright on their code. That cannot be right though. Any legal experts? Or is that Houdart could sue Richard Vida but he cannot sue the Ippolit people? Or is it that in a court the "differenes" would have to be clearly determined and only that is what Robert could sue for? In such a case Richard would be expert witness unless he were involved in the suit!

This whole business makes me think copyright and patent law is broken somehow. I have always suspected that it's not a very good idea but it is the rules we have to play by. I'm not trying to accuse or blame anyone, I'm just trying to make some sort of sense out of this.

[Houdini]

Marco,

What exactly is the so-called "game we all have chosen to play"? Cheating? Hacking? Illegality?

Why do you defend actions that are obviously illegal in your, my and Richards's country?

What would be your reaction to illegal conduct that threatens the livelihood of your family?

Cheers,
Robert

[zullil]

What a mess this has all become.

I just achieved a very satisfying draw playing White against my own cruddy but completely original chess program. My program consists of a move generator, an alpha-beta quiescent search and evaluation by counting positionally-weighted wood. No hash table, no time controls, no iterative deepening, no communication with GUIs, no book. But it's fun to write the code, and fun to play chess against a program I created. Fun.

PS---I'm not a very strong chess player, as you may have already guessed.