In support of the IvanHoe authors

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
lucasart
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 11:29 am
Full name: lucasart
Contact:

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by lucasart » Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:55 am

kranium wrote:and by the way Isaak:

IMO, you did a great disservice to IvanHoe by releasing (on an almost daily basis for years) hundreds (if not thousands) of compiles with none really any better than the rest, i hope you realize that...

i believe your method of learning how to compile, i.e. 'change a parameter' or 'try a new compiler option', then releasing your experiment to an enthusiastic Immortal public for testing,
badly damaged IvanHoe's acceptance as a serious engine, as most/all reputable testers were completely put-off by the confused and prolific mess of compiles (among which were many crappy ones)

well that's it for now, talk to you later

Norm
Indeed!

It's a shame that the average forum audience has no clue about programming, and that they can't even make the difference between a "compile" (same source code) and a "derivative" (different source code).

Exactly the same thing happened with the Firenzina farce.

I am guessing that Mars is the same usurpation: the author claims that "this version is based on Fire 2.2, but the next one will be based on IvanHoe". That tells you a lot on the amount of code that has been changed (as Jose Velasco pointed out quite rightly in the tournament forum, regarding the LS-rating list).

I only wish more people listened to you, because when it comes to the Ippolit story, you're the only one who knows what he is talking about.
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.

Izak Pretorius
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:44 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by Izak Pretorius » Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:41 am

lucasart wrote:
kranium wrote:and by the way Isaak:

IMO, you did a great disservice to IvanHoe by releasing (on an almost daily basis for years) hundreds (if not thousands) of compiles with none really any better than the rest, i hope you realize that...

i believe your method of learning how to compile, i.e. 'change a parameter' or 'try a new compiler option', then releasing your experiment to an enthusiastic Immortal public for testing,
badly damaged IvanHoe's acceptance as a serious engine, as most/all reputable testers were completely put-off by the confused and prolific mess of compiles (among which were many crappy ones)

well that's it for now, talk to you later

Norm
Indeed!

It's a shame that the average forum audience has no clue about programming, and that they can't even make the difference between a "compile" (same source code) and a "derivative" (different source code).

Exactly the same thing happened with the Firenzina farce.

I am guessing that Mars is the same usurpation: the author claims that "this version is based on Fire 2.2, but the next one will be based on IvanHoe". That tells you a lot on the amount of code that has been changed (as Jose Velasco pointed out quite rightly in the tournament forum, regarding the LS-rating list).

I only wish more people listened to you, because when it comes to the Ippolit story, you're the only one who knows what he is talking about.
hi KLO

It seems you are more ignorant than Norm.
Just because Kranium and KLO are incapable of producing fast compiles,does not mean others can just only compile better than them.
You must be also very ignorant if you look at Stefan Pohls rating list and think it is just compiler optimizations and settings and parameter tuning that give +19 elo increase.
You posts pretty much explain your inexperience in the field.

I would suggest that if you are Norm are jealous you produce something better yourself.

Stop making false accusations and spreading incorrect information and propaganda just because you are jealous and have also interest in the matter and are clearly not objective.

I have made significant code changes in PanChess,and this a fact.
You can live in the past if you like,but PanChess keeps making progress.
16 PanChess 00.537 x64 3037 5 5 13000 47% 3056 57%
17 Ivanhoe 50kQ x64s 3037 4 4 19000 52% 3021 57% (cp)
18 Bouquet 1.7 beta x64 3037 4 4 15000 48% 3054 54%
19 Ivanhoe 46eQi x64s 3034 4 4 33000 50% 3034 57%
20 Gull 2.1 Trap avx 3030 5 5 12000 46% 3055 53%
21 PanChess 00.400 x64 3030 4 4 17000 48% 3046 57%
22 Firenzina 2.3.1 x64s 3030 4 4 21000 48% 3046 56%
23 Fire trap120925 x64s 3028 5 5 11000 48% 3041 59%
24 Robbolito 0.21Q x64s 3028 3 3 46000 50% 3027 58%
25 Firenzina 2.2.2 x64s 3022 4 4 16000 49% 3030 54%
26 Bouquet 1.6 x64s 3022 4 4 35000 50% 3022 57%
27 Stockfish 3 x64s 3020 5 5 12000 46% 3053 45%
28 Ivanhoe 46h x64 3018 4 4 18000 48% 3033 54%
Just accept it.

Signing out,Peterpan.
Last time i will be communicating with you as well Lucas.

User avatar
kranium
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:43 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by kranium » Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:03 am

Izak Pretorius wrote: Thank you Norm.
I always knew you didn't like me,now i know it for sure.
It's not personal, i'm just not a fan of sloppy work and misinformation

I believe I understand what happened here Issak...
I created this topic with this post (split off from Martins TCEC announcement thread:
kranium wrote:
lucasart wrote:
Laskos wrote: And about this plethora of IvanHoe derivatives, I think only IvanHoe should be allowed to compete.
I completely agree.
+1
There are compiles of IvanHoe at the same level as it's derivatives
you didn't like my, Kai, and Lucas's opinion on the matter because PanChess is being considered at the moment for TCEC

although you rarely post here, you logged and began an arrogant campaign against other engines
one by one you discredited them with oft dubious info
Izak Pretorius wrote: IvanHoe 50kQ x64 is not just a compile,but a modification by a user who claims this is just a compile.
Secondly IvanHoe 50kQ has some stability issues.
So Mars is a modified re-compile of Firenzina which is GPL Sad
Which brings as back to the Q compiles,it is not pure.

Best Regards
Peterpan :)
what on earth do you mean by 'is not pure'? is PanChess somehow pure?
i've got no idea what you're talking about
Izak Pretorius wrote: There seems to be some misunderstandings here regarding IvanHoe and which is the strongest etc... as an expert on the field let me explain to those who may be ignorant or just simply don't know better.
didn't you just started compiling a few years ago?
and by 'ignorant', are you referring to just me, Kai, and Lucas, or everyone here?
Izak Pretorius wrote: 15 Ivanhoe 50kQ x64s 3037 4 4 19000 52% 3021 57% (cp)
16 PanChess 00.537 x64 3037 5 5 11000 47% 3059 57%
17 Bouquet 1.7 beta x64 3037 5 5 13000 47% 3057 54%
18 Ivanhoe 46eQi x64s 3035 4 4 31000 50% 3034 57%
19 PanChess 00.400 x64 3030 4 4 17000 48% 3046 57%
20 Firenzina 2.3.1 x64s 3030 4 4 19000 48% 3047 55%

It's (Ivanhoe 46eQi x64s) is 3 elo weaker than PanChess and the strong Bouquet engine.
with just 2 ELO separation, an expert would recognize the error margins involved and no make this statement IMO
Izak Pretorius wrote: Besides,I though talking on this forum would be fun,but all i got here on Talkchess is blatant insults from you Norm.
my demeanor has been polite and respectful throughout
kranium wrote: anyway, best of luck with your project!
Norm
(with the exclusion of the last couple posts)
Izak Pretorius wrote: I think it totally sucks though to get free the greatest free code in chess history up to recently,and then turn around,use that code and put a copyright on it.What is up with that?! Incredible really.Laughable actually.
as you can see, you were the one throwing mud Isaak
Izak Pretorius wrote: You can reply,i won't be coming here again,so keep talking to yourself if it makes you happy.
back to Neverland!
ok, no worries, perhaps you'll grow up one day PeterPan
:)
sorry, couldn't resist

good luck,
Norm

User avatar
lucasart
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 11:29 am
Full name: lucasart
Contact:

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by lucasart » Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:48 am

Izak Pretorius wrote: hi KLO
Who is KLO ?
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.

User avatar
kranium
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:43 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by kranium » Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:13 pm

Izak Pretorius wrote:
You can live in the past if you like,but PanChess keeps making progress.

16 PanChess 00.537 x64 3037 5 5 13000 47% 3056 57%
17 Ivanhoe 50kQ x64s 3037 4 4 19000 52% 3021 57% (cp)
18 Bouquet 1.7 beta x64 3037 4 4 15000 48% 3054 54%
19 Ivanhoe 46eQi x64s 3034 4 4 33000 50% 3034 57%
20 Gull 2.1 Trap avx 3030 5 5 12000 46% 3055 53%
21 PanChess 00.400 x64 3030 4 4 17000 48% 3046 57%
22 Firenzina 2.3.1 x64s 3030 4 4 21000 48% 3046 56%
23 Fire trap120925 x64s 3028 5 5 11000 48% 3041 59%
24 Robbolito 0.21Q x64s 3028 3 3 46000 50% 3027 58%
25 Firenzina 2.2.2 x64s 3022 4 4 16000 49% 3030 54%
26 Bouquet 1.6 x64s 3022 4 4 35000 50% 3022 57%
27 Stockfish 3 x64s 3020 5 5 12000 46% 3053 45%
28 Ivanhoe 46h x64 3018 4 4 18000 48% 3033 54%

Just accept it.
accept this:

Firenzina is = Fire 2.2 (released more than 2 years ago)

(there is code cleanup, linux support, newest compiler intrinsic headers, new Intel prefetch routines, etc.)
that's basically it...no changes to search or eval

when compiled properly (highly optimized with the newest Intel compiler) it ends up -7 (w/+4 -4 error margin) to PanChess (w/+5 -5 error margin)
are you starting to see the picture?

Adam Hair
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by Adam Hair » Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:13 pm

lucasart wrote:
Izak Pretorius wrote: hi KLO
Who is KLO ?
It seems that Izak has mistaken you for "kingliveson", who is active at Open Chess.

User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by geots » Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:49 am

kranium wrote:Izak-
i have made no accusations, not have i flamed anyone...please reread my posts and i think you find my manner respectful and polite

the point of this topic was to express my support for the Ippolit authors
...they are the original authors of IvanHoe and all of it's many derivatives
(including robbolito, panchess, bouquet, mars, firenzina, etc.)

the fact is:

in the Lightspeed rating list,
the Ippo derivatives (as well as the recompiles w/ new and faster Intel optimizations) are bunched extremely close together...
with no derivative clearly distinguishing itself

and there at least 2 compiles of IvanHoe equal to anything else

i believe if a match/tournament organizer decides to chose one Ippo engine,
(not counting Houdini which has evolved enough IMO to be considered a different engine)...

and no derivative is significantly stronger...
the proper thing to do would be to chose the 'original' engine,
and by doing so, give the engine it's proper place, and the authors some credit

i realize you and Jose don't like this, but it's my opinion, as is apparently shared by others
Norm






Norman, you know me perhaps better than anyone. It would be impossible to get any further from "politically correct" than I am now. I never want to hurt anyone's feelings. But the truth is the truth- I did not invent it. And Stefan of the "Lightning List" is a nice guy- but I am sorry- letting one engine into the rating list aborts and ruins the whole list for me. And that is why I never look at his results- this one engine taints the whole process. And that is "Robodini"- to me the damndest, most useless piece of shit I have seen in a while. I seriously question Richard's sanity for making it public- and Stefan's judgment in using it. Sorry- it is what it is.



All the best,

george

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 35267
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by Graham Banks » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 am

geots wrote:...... "Robodini"- to me the damndest, most useless piece of shit I have seen in a while. I seriously question Richard's sanity for making it public- and Stefan's judgment in using it. Sorry- it is what it is.......
Richard regretted releasing it and would probably have appreciated if nobody tested it at all and it had died a quiet death.

It was a terrible mistake, but some don't care about what Richard would prefer because they just want strong engines no matter what they are or where they come from.
gbanksnz at gmail.com

User avatar
kranium
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:43 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by kranium » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:06 am

geots wrote:
kranium wrote:Izak-
i have made no accusations, not have i flamed anyone...please reread my posts and i think you find my manner respectful and polite

the point of this topic was to express my support for the Ippolit authors
...they are the original authors of IvanHoe and all of it's many derivatives
(including robbolito, panchess, bouquet, mars, firenzina, etc.)

the fact is:

in the Lightspeed rating list,
the Ippo derivatives (as well as the recompiles w/ new and faster Intel optimizations) are bunched extremely close together...
with no derivative clearly distinguishing itself

and there at least 2 compiles of IvanHoe equal to anything else

i believe if a match/tournament organizer decides to chose one Ippo engine,
(not counting Houdini which has evolved enough IMO to be considered a different engine)...

and no derivative is significantly stronger...
the proper thing to do would be to chose the 'original' engine,
and by doing so, give the engine it's proper place, and the authors some credit

i realize you and Jose don't like this, but it's my opinion, as is apparently shared by others
Norm
Norman, you know me perhaps better than anyone. It would be impossible to get any further from "politically correct" than I am now. I never want to hurt anyone's feelings. But the truth is the truth- I did not invent it. And Stefan of the "Lightning List" is a nice guy- but I am sorry- letting one engine into the rating list aborts and ruins the whole list for me. And that is why I never look at his results- this one engine taints the whole process. And that is "Robodini"- to me the damndest, most useless piece of shit I have seen in a while. I seriously question Richard's sanity for making it public- and Stefan's judgment in using it. Sorry- it is what it is.

All the best,

george

Hi George,

i agree with Graham
it was just a mistake of judgement
Richard is not 'just' a programming superman, this demonstrates he is clearly a human being as well

concerning Robodini:
i don't understand how Strelka is any different

there are no law suit threats from Houdart
many have accepted into their rating lists, many are testing it, and some testers even championing it

and this despite the fact that he bases his engines and the decompiled sources of the strongest engine available at the time
strelka 2 was based on rybka 3 (and published open source)
and the last releases are based on Houdini 2 and 3
(and he openly admits this)

i'm not sure why Richard is being singled out in this regard (he apologized, let's move on)

concerning the Lightspeed rating list:
i think Stefan simply has an open mind in this regard

but the truth is it's very useful to the masses when trying to see the big picture
(hence it's popularity)
(for ex: get info on the newest Stockfish dev release, or and IvanHoe compile)
i think he's deserves credit for this

Norm

Post Reply