M ANSARI wrote: Actually a hardware based PCI Express solution seems like a great idea to me as it would allow some extra stuff that would provide an even stronger engine. A hardware solution is a lot harder to crack than a software solution ... probably orders of magnitude harder.
Well, if someone wants to have 3 commercial programs, will have to put 3 PCI cards.
Maybe I do not understand the concept.
But this is only going to chess, a hobby.
If someone playing correspondence will not lose his party for not having a commercial program, there is abundant freeware to win games, analyze, fun, ect.
You can still have the other engines, but usually the engine that is a target of RE is the strongest engine. H3 is much stronger than any other engine at the moment, and so it makes a lot more sense to put effort into RE than something else.
Darkmoon wrote:
Unless you are a programmer this side of the argument means absolutely zilch to a consumer.
A consumer can state his/her position in favor of a product for its advancement; and, all the guilt tripping from programmers over its presumed illegality isn't going to amount to hill of beans as long as the product performs excellently and exceeded all previous attempts at development- and, the programmer continues to make great strides in its advancement.
You are shoveling against the tide.
Agreed. Of course tournament organisers such as the ICGA are entitled to set rules for qualifying engines and can include or exclude as they see fit. That is a different issue and a different set of circumstances.
Darkmoon wrote:
Unless you are a programmer this side of the argument means absolutely zilch to a consumer.
A consumer can state his/her position in favor of a product for its advancement; and, all the guilt tripping from programmers over its presumed illegality isn't going to amount to hill of beans as long as the product performs excellently and exceeded all previous attempts at development- and, the programmer continues to make great strides in its advancement.
You are shoveling against the tide.
Agreed. Of course tournament organisers such as the ICGA are entitled to set rules for qualifying engines and can include or exclude as they see fit. That is a different issue and a different set of circumstances.
I agree, however the cc community (may of whom are programmers) values honesty. I hope Robert will realize that it is in his interest to either admit Houdini's origins (or refute the "proof" if he can). Wouldn't it be nice to see Houdini in CCT, ICGA, etc.? I hope, should Robert admit or clarify the situation with evidence, it will be allowed to participate.
Modern Times wrote:Well it is true. Chessbase is a respectable company who would not be selling products that even had a hint of illegality. And I bet all their customers don't give a toss about its origins.
If you prefer to believe it -- your choice.
I think legality isn't a company main driving force.
Main is the profit.
Modern Times wrote:Well it is true. Chessbase is a respectable company who would not be selling products that even had a hint of illegality. And I bet all their customers don't give a toss about its origins.
If you prefer to believe it -- your choice.
I think legality isn't a company main driving force.
Main is the profit.
In particular, look at the "The Diagnostic Criteria" which shows that most corporations have all or some of the characteristics of clinical psychopaths.
The Supreme Court has endowed corporations with "personhood" so it's natural to ask, "if a corporation is a person, what kind of person is it?"
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
seems to me that your apology is as phony as they come... to say so much about what you did is a blatant attempt to destroy houdini reputation. Even still as much as I don't like Robert he has done what no other programmer could do. you can re his work but you have no idea how to make your own engine as good as houdini so instead you chop it up... you have divulged a lot of information about houdini publicly without regard to robert when you could have had a private conversation but you chose to openly disclose what you done. Jealousy runs rapid here. I hope you can be sued.
M ANSARI wrote:The fact that is so easy to clone a chess engine is nothing new, and is the reason that Vas figured that the best solution is to do a Cloud based engine. I think that it is one thing to clone or use code gleaned from a chess engine for your own use and improvement in your own engine, but it is a totally different thing when you actually post and distribute what you have gleaned on the internet. That is what happened with Rybka 3 with Ippolit and I hope this doesn't happen with H3. So far Richard has made it clear that he was just trying to make a point to how easy it is to RE a chess engine, and he has proved a point that many already know. He has not distributed the source code or posted it "anonymously" on the internet which Ippolit did. Maybe the only way to protect your code these days is some sort of hardware or USB based protection. Actually a hardware based PCI Express solution seems like a great idea to me as it would allow some extra stuff that would provide an even stronger engine. A hardware solution is a lot harder to crack than a software solution ... probably orders of magnitude harder.
Totally agreed here Majd.....
He had the opportunity to RE Houdini 3 and release it anonymously with it's source code on the internet and no one will be able to point a finger at him.....
Instead,he made his point and kept his word....
The bad side of the story is that he'll be suspect number one if another programmer RE Houdini 3 and release the source code regards,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
gotogo wrote:seems to me that your apology is as phony as they come... to say so much about what you did is a blatant attempt to destroy houdini reputation. Even still as much as I don't like Robert he has done what no other programmer could do. you can re his work but you have no idea how to make your own engine as good as houdini so instead you chop it up... you have divulged a lot of information about houdini publicly without regard to robert when you could have had a private conversation but you chose to openly disclose what you done. Jealousy runs rapid here. I hope you can be sued.
We do not know what other programmers could do and did not do,
so I think that it is better not to say that a programmer did what no other programmer could do.
Houdini wrote:
There is a substantial difference between using sources that have fallen into the public domain and can no longer be considered private (as is the case with the IPPOLIT stuff), and actively pursuing the RE of a commercial engine 3 months after its release, most likely followed by the release of a free engine that inevitably will make use of the info that was obtained.
Isn't this an EXACT description of the origin of IPPOLIT, except that it took longer than 3 months? If Richard does use info from Houdini RE in Critter (and I'm not saying that he does), it would be exactly the same as what the IPPOLIT author(s) did, from which Houdini started. I'm not saying I approve of this, but I think you are not in a position to complain about RE. If you want to be fairly safe from RE, don't start with someone else's open source code, write an original program.
