Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
hgm
Posts: 26128
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by hgm » Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:59 pm

Surely you are joking! For something to be illegal, no challenge has to be made by anyone. The _law_ specifies what is legal and illegal. "Legal status" is what the law specifies (and presumably courts would rule) in the hypothetical case that a challenge was made. If I steal something, it remains a stolen object, even if the owner does not even know it is stolen yet because he is on holiday. To a witness who saw me take the thing away, the legal status would be "unclear", because he does not know if I acted with approval of the owner (who might, after all, have sold it to me). So it would be unclear if I have the status of legal owner, or illegal possessor.

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by tomgdrums » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:04 pm

Houdini wrote:
UncombedCoconut wrote:"The legal and ethical status of Houdini and especially of Ivanhoe are controversial."
Please note that the legal status of Houdini is not controversial whatsoever. No legal challenge has been put forward by anyone.
Please stop spreading this kind of "legal nonsense", thank you.

Robert
Nice way to sidestep the word ethical. :D

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by tomgdrums » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:05 pm

hgm wrote:Surely you are joking! For something to be illegal, no challenge has to be made by anyone. The _law_ specifies what is legal and illegal. "Legal status" is what the law specifies (and presumably courts would rule) in the hypothetical case that a challenge was made. If I steal something, it remains a stolen object, even if the owner does not even know it is stolen yet because he is on holiday. To a witness who saw me take the thing away, the legal status would be "unclear", because he does not know if I acted with approval of the owner (who might, after all, have sold it to me). So it would be unclear if I have the status of legal owner, or illegal possessor.
Very well said!!

UncombedCoconut
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:40 am
Location: Naperville, IL

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by UncombedCoconut » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:15 pm

Houdini wrote:
UncombedCoconut wrote:"The legal and ethical status of Houdini and especially of Ivanhoe are controversial."
Please note that the legal status of Houdini is not controversial whatsoever. No legal challenge has been put forward by anyone.
Please stop spreading this kind of "legal nonsense", thank you.
I'll admit my wording wasn't careful (I agree that Houdini is legal), but the article's second comment already alleged that "both Houdini, and Ivanhoe ... would be considered illegal clones". Although the commenter eventually revised that statement, the whole spectrum of assertions was already represented -- I've spread no misinformation.

User avatar
Houdini
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by Houdini » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:40 pm

tomgdrums wrote:
Houdini wrote:
UncombedCoconut wrote:"The legal and ethical status of Houdini and especially of Ivanhoe are controversial."
Please note that the legal status of Houdini is not controversial whatsoever. No legal challenge has been put forward by anyone.
Please stop spreading this kind of "legal nonsense", thank you.

Robert
Nice way to sidestep the word ethical. :D
As far as I'm concerned Houdini is also perfectly ethical, but I cannot impose this point of view on anyone else. "Ethical" is a subjective adjective, it completely lies in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, I can make an objective, factual and undeniable claim about the legal status.

Robert

gaard
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Holland, Michigan
Full name: Martin Wyngaarden

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by gaard » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:57 pm

HGM wrote: Surely you are joking! For something to be illegal, no challenge has to be made by anyone. The _law_ specifies what is legal and illegal. "Legal status" is what the law specifies (and presumably courts would rule) in the hypothetical case that a challenge was made. If I steal something, it remains a stolen object, even if the owner does not even know it is stolen yet because he is on holiday. To a witness who saw me take the thing away, the legal status would be "unclear", because he does not know if I acted with approval of the owner (who might, after all, have sold it to me). So it would be unclear if I have the status of legal owner, or illegal possessor.
This is just saying that if a crime has been committed, a crime has been committed, but in the case of Houdini nobody has shown that a crime has been committed, let alone under what statue or law.

On the topic of Ippolit and its legal standing, does this look familiar?
disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

Vas
If Vas does not believe Ippolit's legal standing is questionable - which he could not by his own logic that it is legal - why should we condemn Mr. Houdart who took ideas and possibly code from Ippolit?

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by tomgdrums » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:15 am

Houdini wrote:
tomgdrums wrote:
Houdini wrote:
UncombedCoconut wrote:"The legal and ethical status of Houdini and especially of Ivanhoe are controversial."
Please note that the legal status of Houdini is not controversial whatsoever. No legal challenge has been put forward by anyone.
Please stop spreading this kind of "legal nonsense", thank you.

Robert
Nice way to sidestep the word ethical. :D
As far as I'm concerned Houdini is also perfectly ethical, but I cannot impose this point of view on anyone else. "Ethical" is a subjective adjective, it completely lies in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, I can make an objective, factual and undeniable claim about the legal status.

Robert

I found this (among others) on the web:

"The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-dif ... morals.htm

So ethics aren't an individual choice. They affect the group. In essence without ethics there are no boundaries no thought of the consequences that a behavior will have on the group as a whole. In essence when ethics become individualistic we basically end up like the children in that famous novel, "The Lord of the Flies".

Which if you look at the discourse on the computer chess forums you could say we have arrived a place that is eerily similar to the 'Lord of the Flies."

tomgdrums
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:48 am

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by tomgdrums » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:17 am

gaard wrote:
HGM wrote: Surely you are joking! For something to be illegal, no challenge has to be made by anyone. The _law_ specifies what is legal and illegal. "Legal status" is what the law specifies (and presumably courts would rule) in the hypothetical case that a challenge was made. If I steal something, it remains a stolen object, even if the owner does not even know it is stolen yet because he is on holiday. To a witness who saw me take the thing away, the legal status would be "unclear", because he does not know if I acted with approval of the owner (who might, after all, have sold it to me). So it would be unclear if I have the status of legal owner, or illegal possessor.
This is just saying that if a crime has been committed, a crime has been committed, but in the case of Houdini nobody has shown that a crime has been committed, let alone under what statue or law.

On the topic of Ippolit and its legal standing, does this look familiar?
disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

Vas
If Vas does not believe Ippolit's legal standing is questionable - which he could not by his own logic that it is legal - why should we condemn Mr. Houdart who took ideas and possibly code from Ippolit?
Publishing findings would seem to infer publication in a scholarly periodical for information's sake. It would not infer using that information to release it under a different name, as an anonymous author authors.

gaard
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Holland, Michigan
Full name: Martin Wyngaarden

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by gaard » Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:31 am

tomgdrums wrote:
gaard wrote:
HGM wrote: Surely you are joking! For something to be illegal, no challenge has to be made by anyone. The _law_ specifies what is legal and illegal. "Legal status" is what the law specifies (and presumably courts would rule) in the hypothetical case that a challenge was made. If I steal something, it remains a stolen object, even if the owner does not even know it is stolen yet because he is on holiday. To a witness who saw me take the thing away, the legal status would be "unclear", because he does not know if I acted with approval of the owner (who might, after all, have sold it to me). So it would be unclear if I have the status of legal owner, or illegal possessor.
This is just saying that if a crime has been committed, a crime has been committed, but in the case of Houdini nobody has shown that a crime has been committed, let alone under what statue or law.

On the topic of Ippolit and its legal standing, does this look familiar?
disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

Vas
If Vas does not believe Ippolit's legal standing is questionable - which he could not by his own logic that it is legal - why should we condemn Mr. Houdart who took ideas and possibly code from Ippolit?
Publishing findings would seem to infer publication in a scholarly periodical for information's sake. It would not infer using that information to release it under a different name, as an anonymous author authors.
To publish only means to make something public. Any inferences about scholarly journals or anonymous authors are entirely yours. I doubt there would be less fuss if Ippolit had been released under Vasik's name, although it is clearly not a 100% reproduction of Rybka.

If you want we can continue this in "Engine Origins", but I don't want to derail this thread any more.



Congratulations to Martin and Robert.

User avatar
Don
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

Post by Don » Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:16 pm

De Vos W wrote:
notyetagm wrote:Houdini wiped out Rybka 4 today, totally outplaying it.

Houdini is so much stronger than Rybka 4 that it is downright scary. Scary if you're a Rybka fanboy, that is. ;-)
The Rybka 4 fish is "BESMIRCHED" :lol: :lol: :lol:
You were not involved in programing either program, so why should this matter to you?

I just don't understand why people attach so much of their own self-worth to an achievement they had nothing to do with. Don't you have something of your own to take pride in?

Post Reply