New engine test for the IPON list is running

[IWB]

Hello

It's been more than 6 months that a 'loosly called' clone appeared. The accusation - right or wrong -
is, that it is a decompiled Rybka 3.
Within these 6 months I collected every littly hint which might lead to some criminal act. As the
programmer of Rybka did not give any evidence (which is understandable as it is difficult) and I am
not an expert on programming I asked a dozent programmers about their thoughts on that source code.
I got 9 answers with a lot of indications - but no proof. Still I had and have a bad feeling about the
engine. On the other hand it is for sure more than a 'simple' decompile. It seems to be understood and
enhanced in many ways. I personaly think that this has a bad taste, if it is illegal might vary from
county to country.
The 'original clone' intensionaly does not have a real, known person as an author which make it difficult
if not impossible for someone to claim it's intellectual property but there are some new enigenes which
openly admit their use of the doubtfull sources. At the same time there are more and more enignes emerging
with remarkable increases in playing strength in a very short time and as a very strong source code is
available the assumtion that some of these enignes have borrowed something from that source code is likely.
All rating lists are already testing and supporting these engines as they do not have any other possibility
besides stop testing enignes at all.
So we have capable programmers who openly admit to use the source and we have a few who dont, some use more
of the code some less.
To end this dillema I decided to test one engine of a person who, right from the beginning, never tried to
hide the origin of his engine, who seems to be a professional programmer without to much of an ego. Additionaly
it seems that no one tried to stop these engine despite the fact that everything about the author is known. I
will remove the engine from my list the day I hear something different.
I will only allow one of those enignes, which individually might be changed in the future, in my list to
avoid having to play 10 nearly identical motors.

Current IPON Test: http://www.inwoba.de

Please be aware that the actual elo calculation on my web site is provisional. It assumes a fixed elo rate for the opponents, which of course is faulty. The final elo number might be different!

Bye
Ingo

[mcostalba]

Hi Ingo,

this is a very important choice from your side, and I second that.

I also think you have picked up the correct one, not because it is stronger, but because of the good "attitude" of the author. Actually he admits that he has used Ippo, SF and Crafty as references, well, my grunt feeling (but no proof) is that he actually "started from" Ippo sources and then added ideas from other engines, but I consider this not of paramount importance.

Many people started from other engine's sources, even the current official number 1 is rumored to have started (and gone commercial !) from another engine's sources, and that case is also worst because that engine was GPL and so should have been the result...but has been not.

It is a pity I cannot give a look at the resulting sources. Having started from public domain sources it is a "natural" choice to post also the resulting ones (not legally enforced though because of public domain nature of Ippo). On the other hand if what I would find is Ippo + some SF / Crafty ideas thrown in well I am not so interested, nothing new. If instead the author put together some original ideas then of course things get more interesting.

Anyhow you have opened a door that others will follow....

Best
Marco

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

you are sure ?
Door is closed for Houdini, for SWCR.
No one work no test ... that's easy!

Do you read what the Thinker programmer wrote about Houdini?

Do you also read the answere from the Houdini programmer?
No?

Clear, no answere by himself

Best
Frank

[mcostalba]

Hi,

you are sure ?

Hi Frank,

no, I am sure of nothing, but looking at how things changed in the last months I could try to extrapolate a wider tolerance for works derived from Ippolit in the future, especially if the author puts his name on and is willing to take part to community discussions in a constructive way, as seems the case with this one.

Do you read what the Thinker programmer wrote about Houdini?

No, I didn't. Could you please point me to that post ?

Thanks
Marco

[Graham Banks]

Do you read what the Thinker programmer wrote about Houdini?

No, I didn't. Could you please point me to that post ?

Thanks
Marco

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578

[Frank Quisinsky]

I don't like Houdini.
Never I would play with Fire or IvanHoe.

But if a person say to me ...
Frank, IvanHoe or Houdini ...

You can be sure ... 1.000.000x more like to play with IvanHoe or Fire.

[michiguel]

Hi,

you are sure ?

Hi Frank,

no, I am sure of nothing, but looking at how things changed in the last months I could try to extrapolate a wider tolerance for works derived from Ippolit in the future, especially if the author puts his name on and is willing to take part to community discussions in a constructive way, as seems the case with this one.

Do you read what the Thinker programmer wrote about Houdini?

No, I didn't. Could you please point me to that post ?

Thanks
Marco

Besides Lance Perkins, Richard Vida, looked a the decompiled code and made a comment, Jury Osipov, and another one that escapes my memory now.

The author has been accused of taking code from another program but he said plainly that the program was not derived from Ippolit.
Firebird, OTOH, admitted plainly that the code base is from Ippolit. Some people think that this is a minor issue. Some other thinks that the difference is humongous. This is the summary, I think, of the current state of affairs.

Miguel

[mcostalba]

Do you read what the Thinker programmer wrote about Houdini?

No, I didn't. Could you please point me to that post ?

Thanks
Marco

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578

ahaaaa yes, now I remember.

Well I didn't make such a detailed analysis, but, as I said, I also second the "strong" derivation hypothesis. Actually the author, IMHO, could have been more brave in declaring the direct derivation (if this is the case, of course), I think in the medium / long term such choice would have payed better: once you make a statement it is difficult to take it back.

[Milos]

Door is closed for Houdini, for SWCR.
No one work no test ... that's easy!

Well, who cares about yours SWCR.
A domain called amateurschach testing mostly commercial engines with a total number of games that Bob could do on a cluster in a day. It's just grotesque...

[F. Bluemers]

Door is closed for Houdini, for SWCR.
No one work no test ... that's easy!

Well, who cares about yours SWCR.
A domain called amateurschach testing mostly commercial engines with a total number of games that Bob could do on a cluster in a day. It's just grotesque...

Another flame no-one cares about

bob is testing houdini?

I guess i could make the same number of days bob does in a day in one hour here,nevermind the quality.
what matters is the choice Frank made,good or wrong.