Houdini, Fire, IvanHoe, (and Rybka?) are 'clones'...?

[bob]

i think this whole issue would be resolved if engine authors actually shared their findings with the aim of advancing computer chess, rather than just chasing a buck.

I don't think so. Robo* was made public. Several have copied it directly, changed the name, and called it their original work. How do chess programmers cause that to happen???

[kranium]

i think this whole issue would be resolved if engine authors actually shared their findings with the aim of advancing computer chess, rather than just chasing a buck.

I don't think so. Robo* was made public. Several have copied it directly, changed the name, and called it their original work.

Nonsense...
Who are these 'several' you refer to??
It appears you are you simply making stuff up...to suit your agenda.

[poisonedpawn]

i think this whole issue would be resolved if engine authors actually shared their findings with the aim of advancing computer chess, rather than just chasing a buck.

I don't think so. Robo* was made public. Several have copied it directly, changed the name, and called it their original work. How do chess programmers cause that to happen???

in which case they wouldn't be the authors i was meaning.

[bob]

i think this whole issue would be resolved if engine authors actually shared their findings with the aim of advancing computer chess, rather than just chasing a buck.

I don't think so. Robo* was made public. Several have copied it directly, changed the name, and called it their original work.

Nonsense...
Who are these 'several' you refer to??
It appears you are you simply making stuff up...to suit your agenda.

who are these "several"?

Firebird. Ivanhoe. Houdini. A program that was rejected for applying using robo* at the last ICGA WCCC. There have been _other_ "robo clone" discoveries over the past 2 years. Just because you don't follow current events doesn't mean nobody does.

You really don't keep up to date very well, do you???

I can see why you would be shocked. You learn something new every time you turn around. That would be shocking to some.

[bob]

Besides, there are hundreds of absolutely mediocre ('crappy') and boring 'original' programs..who the hell needs another?

That's a real slap in the face to any programmer who has actually made the effort to write a chess engine from scratch.

No...it's my opinion.

It is simply my personal choice 'not' to spend my time on a mediocre program...
I prefer to channel my 'effort' elsewhere,
others are entitled to do what they want with their time. I have no issue with that.

But believe me Graham, I get the drift.
The CCC environment leaves no doubt as to the message:
Led by Bob, the Talkchess 'culture' puts values on 100% originality, only...
i.e. the only valid program is written from scratch.

(I'd like to see all these programmers of the referred to 'mediocre' engines prove 100% originality...)

And anything else is trash..., and anyone working on a derivative is a fraud, a simple 'cloner'...

Bob said it himself:

Clones. Derivatives. Doesn't matter. Either is just as bad (and unacceptable) as the other.

"Bingo!". Glad you finally "get it." Any idiot can copy source. It takes effort AND skill to actually write a functioning engine, and even moreso to create one that is strong.

[kranium]

I don't think so. Robo* was made public. Several have copied it directly, changed the name, and called it their original work.

Nonsense...
Who are these 'several' you refer to??
It appears you are you simply making stuff up...to suit your agenda.

who are these "several"?

Firebird. Ivanhoe. Houdini. .

That's false, a complete lie.
I have never called FireBird or Fire my 'original work'...
I give credit give to the authors all over the website and repeatedly in the documentation.

As far as Houdini goes you have no proof of that accusation...
thus it's despicable, or (as founding member and moderator) do you have 'carte blanche' to hurl insult and false accusation (slander) at whoever you disagree with or don't like?

I'll ask you again (not sure why you never answered earlier)
You stated that there have been presented many positions from which RobboLito and Houdini produce identical output...
and that this proves Houdini is a 'clone' of RobboLito.

If Ippolit/Robbo is directly copied from Rybka, then why don't these engines and Rybka produce the same identical output in the same positions?

By your logic, shouldn't this serve as proof that Robbo is not 'copied' from Rybka?

[Harvey Williamson]

(as founding member and moderator) do you have 'carte blanche' to hurl insult and false accusation (slander) at whoever you disagree with or don't like?

No, but he is free to use common sense

[bob]

I don't think so. Robo* was made public. Several have copied it directly, changed the name, and called it their original work.

Nonsense...
Who are these 'several' you refer to??
It appears you are you simply making stuff up...to suit your agenda.

who are these "several"?

Firebird. Ivanhoe. Houdini. .

That's false, a complete lie.
I have never called FireBird or Fire my 'original work'...
I give credit give to the authors all over the website and repeatedly in the documentation.

First, was Houdini claimed to be original or not? "original" so the statement is not "false". Second, have you _ever_ copied another program and claimed that it was original? Yes. Third, did you know that the ICGA refused one robo* clone that applied to the last WCCC?

Do some reading and thinking before you post.

As far as Houdini goes you have no proof of that accusation...
thus it's despicable, or (as founding member and moderator) do you have 'carte blanche' to hurl insult and false accusation (slander) at whoever you disagree with or don't like?

I didn't make the _original_ claim. But I did look at all the data that has been provided, and it is convincing. Thus not "despicable".

I'll ask you again (not sure why you never answered earlier)
You stated that there have been presented many positions from which RobboLito and Houdini produce identical output...
and that this proves Houdini is a 'clone' of RobboLito.

If Ippolit/Robbo is directly copied from Rybka, then why don't these engines and Rybka produce the same identical output in the same positions?

By your logic, shouldn't this serve as proof that Robbo is not 'copied' from Rybka?

I'm not going to argue with someone that is (a) a known clone/derivative author and (b) doesn't understand how easy it is to detect this. Everyone that has looked at Robo* source has reached the same conclusion. A decompiled program. Humans don't write code like that. I'm not going to keep this going on and on. If you don't like it hear, go somewhere else. Right now you are not exactly contributing much to computer chess in general. You are just letting your inability to write your own chess engine spill over into every clone/derivative discussion that springs up, whether you have anything useful to offer or not notwithstanding.

[bob]

(as founding member and moderator) do you have 'carte blanche' to hurl insult and false accusation (slander) at whoever you disagree with or don't like?

No, but he is free to use common sense

And my eyes. And my brain. Things that cloners don't think exist.

[bob]

Norman, give it a rest. IP*/Robo* are _clearly_ clones of something, produced by decompiling something.

Bob...

"If" (and that's a big 'if') Ippolit is the result of 'decompiling' (as you seem to somehow know as fact):

Decompiling is not 'wrong' or 'illegal' in any way...
it is a completely legitimate form of discovery...(according to the US Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court made no such ruling.

Nor did any entity say that you could decompile and then release that "product". You can look inside for your own edification, but you can't sell, give it away, or claim it to be your own original work...