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

In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by kranium » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:18 pm

Graham Banks wrote:
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
Strength-wise I agree, but what counts against Ippolit and IvanHoe is that no real person has been brave enough to own up as the author.
At least with Vitruvius, Bouquet and RobboLito, there is an author attached.

Graham,
Bravery and 'owning up' is not needed here, as there has been no evidence presented anywhere of wrongdoing...

It is clearly a unique and innovative program (even Don D. who stridently dissed anything Ippolit for years, went on record recently with this):
Don wrote:
SzG wrote: OK, so is Ippolit a reverse engineered Rybka?
No. Ippolit is not Rybka. It was heavily based on Rybka but it is a different program.
There are 5 authors listed in the most recent version of IvanHoe:
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore, Yusuf Ralf Weisskopf, and Ivan Skavinsky Skavar

I assure you there are real people behind these names...
these 5 are the true 'authors' (regardless of the fact that one or more name 'may' be an acronym)

Ippolit is undoubtedly one of the most important (if not the most important) open-source software releases since Fruit 2.1 (with big acknowledgement to Stockfish)
and I believe the program and it's authors deserve proper recognition.

Best Regards,
Norm

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10949
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by Laskos » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:32 pm

kranium wrote:
Graham Banks wrote:
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
Strength-wise I agree, but what counts against Ippolit and IvanHoe is that no real person has been brave enough to own up as the author.
At least with Vitruvius, Bouquet and RobboLito, there is an author attached.

Graham,
Bravery and 'owning up' is not needed here, as there has been no evidence presented anywhere of wrongdoing...

It is clearly a unique and innovative program (even Don D. who stridently dissed anything Ippolit for years, went on record recently with this):
Don wrote:
SzG wrote: OK, so is Ippolit a reverse engineered Rybka?
No. Ippolit is not Rybka. It was heavily based on Rybka but it is a different program.
There are 5 authors listed in the most recent version of IvanHoe:
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore,
Yusuf Ralf Weisskopf, and Ivan Skavinsky Skavar

I assure you there are real people behind these names, for ex:
R. Pescatore has posted on ippolit.wikispaces.com on many occasions.

These 5 are the true 'authors' (regardless of the fact that one or more name may be an acronym)

It is undoubtedly one of the most important (if not the most important) open-source software releases since Fruit 2.1 (with big acknowledgement to Stockfish) and I believe the program and it's authors deserve proper recognition.

Best Regards,
Norm
Not only that, but Graham's thinking is convoluted in a sublime way. Assume IvanHoe is built by anonymous authors who ask for no recognition and no rewards. Like anonymous writings of Middle Ages. Graham is saying that a work of an anonymous author is to be dismissed, but the works which are literal copies of the anonymous work, an anonymous work appropriated by so called "authors", are to be considered. How silly is that. It's a plain encouragement of crooks.

User avatar
velmarin
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:48 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by velmarin » Fri Aug 16, 2013 8:53 pm

Laskos wrote: Not only that, but Graham's thinking is convoluted in a sublime way.

It's a plain encouragement of crooks.

Graham or another tester has a problem with Ivanhoe,
who to contact.


Ippolit, Robbo, Ivanhoe, ect, are PUBLIC DOMAIN, belongs to the workers.
Some decided to give coverage to the project, when you send an email or ask me anything, I'm here.

luck is that it gives you the opportunity to insult us, calling us crooks.
Thank you very much.

Carlos Ylich
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by Carlos Ylich » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:15 pm

Anonymous and pseudonymous works must exist throughout the life of humanity. Recognition Ivanhoe and Ippolit now! :!: :!:
Remember Sabra and Chatila

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

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by kranium » Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:46 pm

velmarin wrote: Graham or another tester has a problem with Ivanhoe,
who to contact.
?
R. Pescatore (and others involved) have patiently and diligently answered any/all questions, for ex:
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/share/view/29992437

User avatar
velmarin
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:48 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by velmarin » Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:39 pm

kranium wrote:
velmarin wrote: Graham or another tester has a problem with Ivanhoe,
who to contact.
?
R. Pescatore (and others involved) have patiently and diligently answered any/all questions, for ex:
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/share/view/29992437
Friend Norman,
of Ippolit wiki, the last tarball that was published,
I prepare the relase, and made it public.
 ComStock 3
and Ivanhoe 46H3, how prize was insulted.

The link you put is three years old.

But I did not attack anyone, I feel bad to attack Graham,
or call "crooks", who work in Ippolit, you included,
you are in the same boat,
not feel different.

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 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:36 am

Laskos wrote: Not only that, but Graham's thinking is convoluted in a sublime way. Assume IvanHoe is built by anonymous authors who ask for no recognition and no rewards. Like anonymous writings of Middle Ages. Graham is saying that a work of an anonymous author is to be dismissed, but the works which are literal copies of the anonymous work, an anonymous work appropriated by so called "authors", are to be considered. How silly is that. It's a plain encouragement of crooks.
They are not all crooks: only the ones that violate the GPL (closed source). So long as clone developpers keep their source code open, and are honest about the origin of their program, I have no problem with it.

I am just saying that they should not be allowed to compete in tournaments, otherwise, otherwise tournaments would be infested with dozens of clones. And since none of these clones is stronger than the original IvanHoe, I don't see any reason why they merit to supplant the original and participate in its stead.

Martin however has made the decision to include onle ONE engine of the Ippolit family. This is certainly a good idea, and without that new rule, his tournament would become a long TC version of Stefan Pohl's LS rating list (ie. 90% clones 10% original programs: completely uninteresting). Whether he chooses the right and most deserving version of the clones is another question though. Clearly he prefers crooks over honest cloners (closed source, violation of GPL).
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 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:04 am

hi jose

I must agree with you.

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.

Some person here claimed that Bouquet and PanChess is just as strong as the strongest IvanHoe.Okay lets look at that for a moment shall we..

On the Stefan Pohl rating list we have as follows :

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%
21 Fire trap120925 x64s 3029 5 5 11000 48% 3041 59%
22 Robbolito 0.21Q x64s 3028 3 3 44000 50% 3027 58%
23 Firenzina 2.2.2 x64s 3022 4 4 16000 49% 3030 54%
24 Bouquet 1.6 x64s 3022 3 3 35000 50% 3022 57%
25 Stockfish 3 x64s 3020 5 5 12000 46% 3053 45%
26 Ivanhoe 46h x64 3018 4 4 18000 48% 3033 54%
27 Gull 2.1 x64 3018 5 5 10000 45% 3053 55%
28 Bouquet 1.5 x64s 3016 5 5 15000 47% 3036 57%
29 Robbolito 0.10 x64s 3016 4 4 15000 48% 3030 55%

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.

Compare again for example IvanHoe 46h (which i compiled) and then PanChess 00.537 (which is my modification of the same source as Ivanhoe 46h which i compiled) and tell me there is no progress in IvanHoe :)

Now if you look at the list again it is abvious that Bouquet and PanChess has made some progress and there are authors still working on it.Yes,it is based on IvanHoe,it has IvanHoe as it's origins.

Finally,i don't mind which engines Martin uses in his tournament,and i which the IvanHoe derivative that Martin chooses to use in his Tournament and it's author all the best of luck.

As long as i can continue making progress on PanChess i don't care about the politics and the jealousy of others.

Also i which my friend Jose also all the best with his great modification of IvanHoe (Bouquet) and it would be very good also to see this engine in TCEC

Best Regards
Peterpan :)

User avatar
velmarin
Posts: 1600
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:48 am

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by velmarin » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:17 am

Izak, Bouquet not is Ivanhoe,
I've never used that code, ever.

First they accuse of being Fire, now until Kranium
it lists how Ivanhoe, Not is IvanHoe.

Bouquet, no contains Kpk tables , example, Uci different, Time different,ect.


Regarding TCEC, are always the same pressure.
Forcing Martin to make decisions.

I hope Martin does not violate his word, Bouquet received his invitation firm, now called into question by these pressures.
It would be a huge disappointment.

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

Re: In support of the IvanHoe authors

Post by Izak Pretorius » Sat Aug 17, 2013 6:26 am

Jose

Okay my apologies for my ignorance ;)
I didn't know better.

Let me say then that i wish to see Bouquet in the TCEC tournament + a strong and stable Ivanhoe derivate.

Best Regards
Izak

Post Reply