The silence of Robert Houdart

[bhlangonijr]

Maybe I got it all wrong. So, what exactly is one doing when picking through the ippo* code trying to figure it out to see if any ideas can be discovered to implement in one's own engine?

That's it. He is trying other's ideas on his own engine. Some might work others not. Every single top programmer does that and it doesn't prevent his program of being an original work.

What is that called? Ditto disassembly of Houdini, Rybka, etc.? You disagree with Muller that Fabien's accomplishment and originality is relegated to little more than debugging? Why do you disagree with that, if you do? If good debugging earns one the "originality" predicate a la Muller, then why does Don dismiss Richard's opinion that Houdart has done something original? What are your percentages? Dear sir, please divide up each of the Crafty functions below into two groups: 1-1 and 1-many. Let's start there. Please don't bother, if all you got to say is "you know it when you see it". We have a long ways to go; but, you appear to have interest in defining "originality". In your opinion, what % of chess engine source code is 1:1 and what percentage is 1:many? Are there sub-parts within search() that are 1:1? What category do magic bitboards fall into? kpk bitbases go into the 1:1 bucket, right? For, instance, if I copy the following null move code into my search(), does that diminish "originality"?:

Now you have switched from trolling to post something worth the discussion.
The word "original" as applied to computer chess is subject to semantics. I think it is not that difficult to define it for the purpose of a "working" definition. But don't mix original as applied in "original work" and "original idea": Houdini is not an original work, because Robert Houdart started out of Ippo* sources. Although Houdini is an original chess engine, otherwise it would not be clearly in the 1th spot - Original here, in the sense it is unprecedented (specially in terms of Elo). If Robert Houdart had a original idea... I don't know. That was what Don was arguing when Richard said he found a "never-seen" horizon extension idea. As far as I can tell Don stated it is not new, as it could be found in earlier versions of others engines, as in GnuChess. Maybe you are distorting this simple argument and creating a controversy.

[benstoker]

Why do you ask for a recapitulation of all the threads over the last year? Too much work. Where the heck were you? Don has expounded at length here why he thinks Houdart has no new engine ideas, but instead has only taken someone else's code and just proven himself to be a very good debugger.

I do not know where you were, but Don's recognized RH talent when Houdini 1.5 was released. For instance, he said:

"...So I guess we both agree that both Vas and Robert Houdart are talented and original thinkers!"
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ini#381753
He consistently said that improving on a top engine required talent.

Your sarcasm, accusations, and aggressiveness towards DD are completely out of line.

Miguel

Whata freakin joke.

Care to elaborate what you mean?

It's your turn, chump.

So be it. FWIW, I hadn't classified you as a troll, and did give you the benefit of the doubt.

You're an infinite loop. I triggered an interrupt. Ciao.

[Don]

@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.

@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.

Cheers,
Robert

Some things we don't know. Other things we do know. And we do know, on the word of Don Dailey, that even if you, Mr. Houdart, muster another +50 ELO out of Houdini 2.0, it won't be the result of any new chess engine ideas you will have created, but just the handiwork of a skilled debugger.

You see, although Komodo is 150 ELO below Houdini, it's 100% "original" as to the 1% of the total code that matters, i.e., approx. 5% of the search() and about 3% of the eval() code. Of course, these days, around 99% of the source code is ministerial in nature, one-input-one-output crap functions, public domain junk like magic bitboards, bit counting asm garbage, etc.

It's a pity that fine debuggers like you don't get as much credit as the guys spinning their wheels creating buggy "original" code comprising just around 1% of the engine.

Robert, you and Don should partner up! Think about it. Do you smell the dollars, the euros?! You could explain to Don and Larry the Ippo* code, and then Don could figure out how to rewrite the code so that it's "original". You follow? Then, you, Robert, debug the holy shit out of Don's original rewrite. Sign a 50/50 partnership agreement, sell through Chessbase and go to the bank!

It is really odd that you insist in lambasting Don's work like this.

Why suggest that only 1% of his work is original, that he wants to rewrite IPPO code, and finally that his programming skills are so poor that they require an outsider to debug them?

What do you have against him?

Albert, take this as your opportunity to, for the very first time, define that word of yours, "original". Start with that.

Instead, why don't you answer the question(s)?

Why do you ask for a recapitulation of all the threads over the last year? Too much work. Where the heck were you? Don has expounded at length here why he thinks Houdart has no new engine ideas,

I'm not going to get sucked into this thread, but I want to correct an error, I don't believe that Houdart has no original ideas. In fact I think it's clear that he does have good ideas.

This shows that you completely misunderstand my point of view on this and that is why I have refrained from just more iterations of this continued nonsense.

but instead has only taken someone else's code and just proven himself to be a very good debugger. Mostly Kaufman has at length inquired about the workings of Ippo and described their successes and failures with using and experimenting with its search() and eval() in developing Komodo. Everybody likes to use the word "original". Nobody cares to define it. Except for Hyatt. And, well, I have tried. Look at the other replies here, just the same old crap about stealing. Doh! I'm sure the ICGA will get a lot of mileage out of that criterion: stolen code != original. Doh! [Or, to sheen this: "Winning!"] Just a bunch of lazy, chattering, wimps and geeks and fanboys with no aptitude or appreciation for how the ICGA will accomplish the task of adjudging "originality". A whole hell of a lot of code in chess engines is one-input-one-output. [See all the discussions on this, if you don't know what this is. You may have to go to another site. Figure it out.] Search() and eval() are not 1-1 functions. Still, probably 99% of the Ideas in search() and eval() are shared by all top programs. Creating another popcount function doesn't get you "originality" kudos. Creating another decent search() does. You and others will undoubtedly confuse "originality" with copyright, and thus don't get it; not gonna copy/paste that discussion. [See discussions elsewhere]. [See discussions on rewriting source code.] [See Don threads belittling Houdart.] [See Kaufman discussing disassembling Houdini and experimenting with ippo*] [See Richard point out Houdart's originality; See Don's dismissal of Richard's opinion.] [See Muller's equating debugging with "originality", and that Fruit's "originality" is largely Fabien's debugging skills.] Do some logic in your head. Don has "original" code, but for whatever reason, it's inferior. Don should hire Houdart, the Great Debugger, to debug his "original" code in the same way Muller described Fabien's accomplishment. Is that enough? How's the weather in Rio?

[Dann Corbit]

I think that benstoker just like to yank chains.
Of course, I could be wrong.

My dad had a horse named lighting. He was a little edgy, so he did not let anyone else ride him.

One time, my dad mounted up and lightning went bonkers. He would start bucking like a prize winning bucking bronco, and my dad would start to fly off. Lightning realized that dad was going to hit the turf, so he would jump under him to catch him. This went on for some minutes until the horse (and rider) was utterly exhausted.

Well, my dad got off, and pulled the saddle. There was a little tiny pine cone about the size of a grape stuck to the felt on the underside of the saddle.

I wonder who put the burr in benstoker's saddle.

[benstoker]

@Carlos, The two options you present are not mutually exclusive . But yes, I'm currently working hard on Houdini 2.0.

@Gerold, I'm not in the least influenced by the Fruit/Rybka thing, I have no dealings with the ICGA.

Cheers,
Robert

Some things we don't know. Other things we do know. And we do know, on the word of Don Dailey, that even if you, Mr. Houdart, muster another +50 ELO out of Houdini 2.0, it won't be the result of any new chess engine ideas you will have created, but just the handiwork of a skilled debugger.

You see, although Komodo is 150 ELO below Houdini, it's 100% "original" as to the 1% of the total code that matters, i.e., approx. 5% of the search() and about 3% of the eval() code. Of course, these days, around 99% of the source code is ministerial in nature, one-input-one-output crap functions, public domain junk like magic bitboards, bit counting asm garbage, etc.

It's a pity that fine debuggers like you don't get as much credit as the guys spinning their wheels creating buggy "original" code comprising just around 1% of the engine.

Robert, you and Don should partner up! Think about it. Do you smell the dollars, the euros?! You could explain to Don and Larry the Ippo* code, and then Don could figure out how to rewrite the code so that it's "original". You follow? Then, you, Robert, debug the holy shit out of Don's original rewrite. Sign a 50/50 partnership agreement, sell through Chessbase and go to the bank!

It is really odd that you insist in lambasting Don's work like this.

Why suggest that only 1% of his work is original, that he wants to rewrite IPPO code, and finally that his programming skills are so poor that they require an outsider to debug them?

What do you have against him?

Albert, take this as your opportunity to, for the very first time, define that word of yours, "original". Start with that.

Instead, why don't you answer the question(s)?

Why do you ask for a recapitulation of all the threads over the last year? Too much work. Where the heck were you? Don has expounded at length here why he thinks Houdart has no new engine ideas,

I'm not going to get sucked into this thread, but I want to correct an error, I don't believe that Houdart has no original ideas. In fact I think it's clear that he does have good ideas.

This shows that you completely misunderstand my point of view on this and that is why I have refrained from just more iterations of this continued nonsense.

I'll try just a 1/4 iteration. I'm tired of this vortex too. All you dish out is 'you're an idiot', 'nonsense', etc. Very tiresome. Richard pointed out a number of "new" things in Houdini. You said none of it was original. Let's not iterate that. I sincerely hope you and LK figure ippo* out, learn from it, and come out with a kickass Komodo. Or, maybe you will learn nothing from it. You two are "bitchin' rock stars from Mars"! But, your statements about "originality" amount to no more than foggy notions. Computer chess is gravely damaged by the crafty-fruit-rybka-ippo affair. Your perpetuation of vague gauges of originality - mixed with disdain -, quite frankly, does nothing to help it. You're a rock star, a snob, but not a leader. You can't lead the idiots out of today's mess of computer chess. Let them eat cake. Over and out.

[Christopher Conkie]

I don't believe that Houdart has no original ideas. In fact I think it's clear that he does have good ideas.

I don't Don. I think he knows nothing about anything. There has been nothing technical from him ever. Not once.....ever.

I don't even think he compiles it......there you go and now you know what I think.

I'm pretty sure he is the front for something made by someone else. I'd stake good money on it in fact.



FWIW

Chris

[jmartus]

why are people wanting to pay for Houdini 2.0 when he admitted he started with some code from ippo and company. well i guess atleast he program is bug free and he been honest since the beginning. sigh

[Romy]

I'd stake good money on it in fact.

How much, what odds?

[Christopher Conkie]

I'd stake good money on it in fact.

How much, what odds?

More than you could ever afford.

[bob]

Null-move is not one-to-one. There is normal null-move, null-move with an offset window, null-move with verification, double-null-move vs disallowing two consecutive null-moves, etc. I can't think of much in search that would meet my suggested 1:1 test.

This is a false logic. You can have a 1000 different implementations of null-move. They'd all be crap (offset window, verification, double null-move, just bunch of things that don't work, a graveyard of dead ideas, some "clever" ppl once thought are smart, and that today bring only misconception) and one and only one is there that is working.
However, there is a thing that is important. And that's null-move reduction implementation. It differs good from great (are you still living in the prehistoric times of Heinz, or not). However, it is far to simple to be any criterion for originality.

Offset null-move does work. And it has a neat threat-detection usage. Verification search after null-move seems to work for some, not for me. Double null works for vincent (and others). I have not tried that. But the point is not if they work or not, but if they are different, and they are. There is not one "correct" implementation of null-move. There is one correct SEE.

As far as depth reduction. I use R=3. I have done so since I added q-search checks which eliminated the drop-back to 2 near the leaves safety-check... And in that regard, which is still a direct part of null-move, some still do an adaptive R reduction factor that goes beyond 3. I just have not played with that very much since the other reductions offer as much or more in terms of savings and potential additional savings.