Robodini Q&A

[Houdini]

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.

It goes way beyond that.

Suppose someone RE's your next Komodo 6 and then:
- Discusses the results openly on this forum.
- Publishes the source code in a different language (say, Fortran or Pascal) so that it's an obviously non-competitive engine but still shows all the details of your evaluation and search.
- Integrates important search and evaluation elements in his own engine, and then distributes his engine source code to competitors.
- Provides help on the forums to other people that want to RE Komodo.
- Releases a free Komostrelka 1.1 that plays exactly like your commercial Komodo 6.

If you approve of all this, I will hire Jury Osipov to do the job.

Cheers,
Robert

[Don]

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.

It goes way beyond that.

Suppose someone RE's your next Komodo 6 and then:
- Discusses the results openly on this forum.
- Publishes the source code in a different language (say, Fortran or Pascal) so that it's an obviously non-competitive engine but still shows all the details of your evaluation and search.
- Integrates important search and evaluation elements in his own engine, and then distributes his engine source code to competitors.
- Releases a free Komostrelka 1.1 that plays exactly like your commercial Komodo 6.

If you approve of all this, I will hire Jury Osipov to do the job.

Cheers,
Robert

I don't approve of it at all as you probably well know. I would probably have a bit of a fit over it and then move on but my consternation would be limited because I am of the opinion that it doesn't really matter that much.

But it does matter a little. There are things in Komodo that I would not want YOU to know about because a few ELO makes all the difference when you are rivals with someone. But having your entire source code revealed, or Komodo's, would not revolutionize computer chess and it would not suddenly cause everyone to pass you. It would not be like suddenly everyone else is going to be 200 ELO stronger but it would help your rivals in a small way.

The reason I think the benefit is limited, especially in the long run, is because the people who are really motivated are going to make progress anyway and revealing something like the "pawn spread for knights" is not going to set off bells and whistles for anyone. In science it is extremely common for multiple people to make the same discovery and this is much like that. Now maybe you won't get the same exact idea as someone else but it will based on similar principles.

Now the strelka thing would REALLY upset me. On a scale of having all my ideas layed bare and having someone clone Komodo like they did Houdini 1.5 it would be like a 1 vs a 10. Since Houdini 1.5 is not commercial it is not quite as big a deal but if someone did "strelka-ize" Komodo 5 there would be no reason to purchase Komodo 5.

Nothing is going to stop this sort of thing except for lawsuits. I can bitch and moan all I want (and I used to do so) and even threaten, but what reason does Richard, Jury Osipov or anyone else have to stop what they are doing when there is no personal downside for them?

[mcostalba]

Cheers,

Well, your analogy with the family is a bit out of scope, although I can understand that you and your family eventually live out of Houdini sales.

The "game we all have chosen to play" is that RE strongest engines has been not invented by Richard, nor by Ippo guys. It is anecdotal well known that many (all?) commercial authors of the past looked at competitor's engines. But nobody of them sued the others (for what I know, perhaps I miss some minor case here, but the meaning does not change). Richard didn't secretly RE Houdini and used what it found to sell a more powerful Critter. So, yes, there is a difference between how the RE has been often used in the past and this case.

The "game we all have chosen to play" is that good ideas in chess engines remain exclusive for very little time, pretend the opposite is unrealistic.

Finally I don't defend nor endorse any action here. I didn't give any comment on what Richard has done, I have just commented your threat of legal action. That by the way would be not trivial to prove. I can understand you think action is "illegal" but you really cannot be sure of it because IMHO there are many grey areas and so a label of legal/illegal status is not so self-evident...especially when lawyers are involved

[Houdini]

Well, your analogy with the family is a bit out of scope, although I can understand that you and your family eventually live out of Houdini sales.

Obviously for you and for Richard all this is just a game - "for a bet".
For Don, myself and other commercial authors it's different. We not only have the right but the obligation to take the necessary steps to protect our livelihood.

The "game we all have chosen to play" is that good ideas in chess engines remain exclusive for very little time, pretend the opposite is unrealistic.

I have what appears to be an unrealistic expectation that RE of commercial engines by fellow engine authors is not encouraged on this forum.

Finally I don't defend nor endorse any action here.

By not reacting to Richard's misconduct, you endorse and encourage him.
It is utterly revealing that the only sentence of my post to which you replied was what you called my "my lack of self-control". You obviously didn't feel any need to write a word about Richard's lack of self-control...

Robert

[kgburcham]

What a mess this has all become.

Yes Louis a big mess.
It is fascinating that in the software field these conditions can evolve in 2013. It is almost as if in this field it is a "police yourself" policy.

[Houdini]

I don't approve of it at all as you probably well know.

I'm glad you don't.
Not a single point in the list is fictitious, as you probably understood.

Robert

[GenoM]

If Houdini was entirely original work nobody would even think about such RE-bets, Robert.
Think about it.

Regards,
Geno

[A Distel]

[]

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

[/quote]

Perhaps You confuse making money with freedom?

[jdart]

Works other than code are published under pseudonyms all the time and it does not make their copyright invalid. I do not think your argument that this code is public domain would hold up in court. (There is the practical question of whether the authors can, or would, defend their copyright in court. You can decide they probably won't, and do with the code what you like. But you don't get out of possible legal liability by deciding for yourself that something is public domain, when it was not intended to be such by the authors).

In addition it has been alleged that Robbolito/Ippolit is itself not an original work but derived at least in part from reverse engineering. If this is the case then it is certainly not in the public domain, nor could it be legally placed under a permissive open-source license without the original author's consent.

[Modern Times]

Well, Chessbase clearly don't have any concerns about the legality of Houdini. That is good enough for me.