how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Richard,

if you look on my ToDo list, you can see that I have work up to middle of December. Can't closed SWCR before the ToDo list is ready for take off. Most are older engines (Oldie-Mix) or different other engines I will add.

I can create a poll from the mails I got. Most wishes are, that I continue my work and my News-Ticker. People are disappointed or can understand the reaction. A wild mix on different opinions, but the most wrote that I should continue my work.

Let me thinking about it in the time I am working on the ToDo list. I have also an other idea in my brain but the problem is that this idea need many many time and so far I need my time for other things. SWCR runs without any problems and without I have to invested many time. All is organised and can run. But I am very disappointed about different situations in computer chess and I can't see that any of this things I am disappointed will be better in the future.

Good luck with Critter and and thanks for your answer. You are on the way, your engine play indeed very interesting chess and I hope that you have a long time interest on chess programmings.

Best
Frank

[mclane]

The only thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that Houdini is a legal engine. I would not have gone commercial if I had any doubt about that.

Robert

Hi Robert,

if there is no XYZ in houdini, how do you explain the similarities some people find in the playing style (depth, main line etc.) and in the UCI output ??

see:
http://open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1647&start=10

[mwyoung]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.

Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".

Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.

From the charter:
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
........................................................ Are not flagrant commercial exhortations.

It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result.

As there is no more evidence that Aquarium is “the best GUI” than there is that Pepsi is the best Cola, when either claim is made by the manufacturer, it can be classified in the “flagrant commercial exhortations” category

Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price,

This is an advertising statement, how else can it be classified, when made by the manufacturer? As such, it also falls within the category of "flagrant commercial exhortations".

I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money.

What he admits to be his opinion is tendentious and when made by the manufacturer of the product, can only be considered to be an advertisement that, once again, falls within the category of “flagrant commercial exhortations”.

Three flagrant exhortations within a 5 sentence announcement. A bit rich.

Roger Brown the moderator had already ruled on the above and said Robert Houdart had not done anything that other programmers has not done on CCC. And the post could stay up.

Roger is moderator only not an advacate against Houdini.

The fact is Bob Hyatt is a strong advacate against houdini and is clearly bias against Houdini and Robert Houdart. So he used his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. Over the ruling of moderator Roger Brown.....

[marcelk]

I see a perpetual check here. There should be a draw rule after 50 moves.

[Pablo Vazquez]

Hi Robert,

well as far as I know the other thread is moved/deleted. Anyway, if I got you right in that thread then Houdini in the beginning started with the source of Robbolito 0.85f1 which is according to it's license in the public domain. Can you confirm that ?

Greets, Thomas

The actual version it was derived from was one of Norman's versions (either 0.085g3 or 0.09, I don't know). This was already discovered more than a year ago in a thread in open-chess.org.

Hi Pablo,

well, that was my opinion too, but Robert denys that completely... In fact we will never get the source, so we will never know for sure. It's a bit like the Rybka-Fruit case, a lot of indices, but the author completely denies...

Greets, Thomas

Hi Thomas,

Even without the source, I don't think there is any doubt at all. Lance Perkins and kingliveson have posted assembly from both programs that match. Christopher Conkie posted a lot of positions where the pvs where identical. I made some posts in a thread some time ago (http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40294) where I showed just how similar both programs where in a couple of positions (startpos and starpos + e4). The format of the UCI output is identical, with the curious two blank spaces between the score and the "cp" token. The node counts were the same in the first iterations.

Any person with basic knowledge of how a chess engine works, knows that "node match = functional equivalence" 99.99% of the time, and can connect the dots between Houdini 1.0 and Robbolito 0.09. Of course, you will always have a couple of people with the usual counterarguments (envy, witch hunt, etc).

Regards

[rodolfoleoni]

But, as I read in another thread in these days, there was a version of Robbolito which was public domain, not GPLed, and work with Houdini could have been started with that Robbo.

Not taking any part in the conflict, I'd only like to understand things better....

Assuming that 1. the Robbo authors are not Americans and 2. still alive, the following is likely true: There are versions that are stated to be public domain, but legally these versions still aren't public domain after just such statement (except possibly in the USA) and thus not free of all rights: most notably the right of being attributed as author is still with the original authors.

The 'public domain' attribute means that it is free of all rights. Assuming that the RobboLito authors are European or Russian, they don't have a possibility to forfeit their moral right of attribution. Also not by declaring such. That right is non-transferrable. It is therefore practically impossible, in these countries, to place something in the PD when alive.

Let me say something absurd.... I assume "Roberto Pescatore" is not American. Let us assume he's not Italian too. (Words he used seem Google-translated from English) Let us assume he's Belgian....

Right, that's absurd! I don't think Robert Houdart used that nickname for building Robbo. It must be someone else.... But the clear point is: can an anonymous author claim GPL rights and/or moral rights?

[mwyoung]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.

If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.

Kai

If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...

This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.

Kai

I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...

The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.

Kai

Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO

Then you're clued out or in denial. Take your pick.

Really,

Then maybe you can tell me the person who Robert H. stole code from, and if the person you name is making the same charge that Robert stole code.............Waiting............

The Hackers that stole from Rybka to make their perverse point. The aliases are listed at their site.

Any other questions?

This does not answer anything......

Who's code got stolen by Robert Houdart? Give us names if you know them....Waiting

Name(s) of the owner of the code Robert Houdart stole. ___________

Is the person you name that owns the code. Making a charge against Robert Houdart that he stole his code?

Yes or No _________

If you can not answer the questions, then I don't see a problem for Robert Houdart.

Still waiting......

[Frank Quisinsky]

Robert,

I can see that different good ideas by yourself must be included in the IPP sources, means in Houdini. I am sure that you have knowledge about programmings and also you gave in the latest year many of your fans a good support.

But ...
No doubt after all I can read about it that you are using IPP sources.

I think a programmer should be honest to here fans and customers. Again and again, this is the way I like.

And I am sure, that many other programmers used free available sources too. I know that it can't be right to attack each time the same persons, like Vas or yourself.

In the community are many persons which are very honest, others which make troubles, now many years and this persons are allways the same.

I invested many time in this hobby, wrote 150.000 eMails, around 40.000 messages in chess fora for an example, working now since 15 years an different things. Most work I had with support questions. I have over 9.000 chess people in my address book and believe me ...

I saw many persons like yourself in the past which used things other people develops.

Please, be honest to your customers and fans and believe me your life will be much more interesting.

To start new things with a lie can be very danger.
Not for the users of your engine, no ... no for yourself. Not speaking from courts, legal aspects.

Sorry to break it to you, but it can not be good for YOU.

Best
Frank

[Terry McCracken]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.

If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.

Kai

If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...

This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.

Kai

I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...

The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.

Kai

Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO

Then you're clued out or in denial. Take your pick.

Really,

Then maybe you can tell me the person who Robert H. stole code from, and if the person you name is making the same charge that Robert stole code.............Waiting............

The Hackers that stole from Rybka to make their perverse point. The aliases are listed at their site.

Any other questions?

This does not answer anything......

Who's code got stolen by Robert Houdart? Give us names if you know them....Waiting

Name(s) of the owner of the code Robert Houdart stole. ___________

Is the person you name that owns the code. Making a charge against Robert Houdart that he stole his code?

Yes or No _________

If you can not answer the questions, then I don't see a problem for Robert Houdart.

Still waiting......

Are you really this dense? You can wait 'till the cows come home for all I care.

[K I Hyams]

I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J

I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.

Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".

Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.

From the charter:
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
........................................................ Are not flagrant commercial exhortations.

It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result.

As there is no more evidence that Aquarium is “the best GUI” than there is that Pepsi is the best Cola, when either claim is made by the manufacturer, it can be classified in the “flagrant commercial exhortations” category

Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price,

This is an advertising statement, how else can it be classified, when made by the manufacturer? As such, it also falls within the category of "flagrant commercial exhortations".

I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money.

What he admits to be his opinion is tendentious and when made by the manufacturer of the product, can only be considered to be an advertisement that, once again, falls within the category of “flagrant commercial exhortations”.

Three flagrant exhortations within a 5 sentence announcement. A bit rich.

Roger Brown the moderator had already ruled on the above and said Robert Houdart had not done anything that other programmers has not done on CCC. And the post could stay up.

Roger is moderator only not an advacate against Houdini.

The fact is Bob Hyatt is a strong advacate against houdini and is clearly bias against Houdini and Robert Houdart. So he used his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. Over the ruling of moderator Roger Brown.....

I note that you don’t dispute my analysis. I am perfectly capable of taking an objective view of Houdart's behaviour and I would also have wanted to remove his thread, on the basis of that analysis. As a mod on CTF, I saw the PM that Hyatt sent to Roger Brown referring to the issue and there was nothing wrong with it. The last time that I looked at page 2 of CCC, the thread in question was back in place, albeit locked.

Perhaps you should take an objective look at your own outpourings over the last 48 hours.