Jeroen wrote:This is the most funny comment I have been reading since a while. You must believe in fairy tales
Jeroen,
Look at the very fine game of chess presented by Bram. Compare the evaluations and the ponder moves. Consider whether Rybka has correctly evaluated the trapped bishop, and whether Houdini has done so.
Curiously, over the last 18 months you have made exactly 4 posts at Talkchess, and every time your *only* goal appeared to be to denigrate Houdini or other competitors of Rybka.
Surely a prominent member of the Rybka team can make better contributions to Talkchess than just trash-talking Houdini.
Robert
Right now Houdini and Rybka are close in playing strength. I have Houdini around +20 over Rybka on my rating list. Some have Rybka a bit stronger.
Now it is panic time for Rybka, because if the new version of Houdini improves even a small amount in elo. It will be clearly stronger then Rybka. You will win this arguement over the board, by how well Houdini plays. That is what they fear.
The new one out ( DeepSaros 2.3c4) is +15elo over R4
with 5/3 TC after 200 games. It is very close to R4.
Damir wrote:There are plenty of other open source engines Robbolito, Ivanhoe, SF etc..
If you are looking for improvements like copy&paste, I think you should look into their source.
zullil wrote:Surely the most prominent member of the Houdini team could decide to release the engine's source code.
so you decided to help with your "smart" suggestion
I have no interest in Rybka; in fact, I've never used it. I would like Robert to release the source code for his own sake. How does he benefit from pretending that Houdini is an original creation? Wouldn't he be happier to simply admit that he took large portions of existing code, but also made changes to that code that improved it? Is the money he might make selling Houdini (which I imagine would be very little money anyway) worth the cost of his continued disingenuousness? I guess he needs to decide that for himself. He seems like a decent fellow; I hope he makes the right decision.
zullil wrote:I would like Robert to release the source code for his own sake. How does he benefit from pretending that Houdini is an original creation? Wouldn't he be happier to simply admit that he took large portions of existing code, but also made changes to that code that improved it? Is the money he might make selling Houdini (which I imagine would be very little money anyway) worth the cost of his continued disingenuousness?
It might not be original, it might be original. Since it's free, there is no real reason to try to "force" the answer. There is not much point anywhere.
The potential outcome would only influence Robert's reputation/fame, but not the status of his engine since it certainly doesn't come from closed source commercial engine.
By releasing his sources he might indirectly improve Rybka and that I see as a great harm to computer chess. Helping immoral guy with no creativity earn even more money on other ppl's work is just not right thing to do.
Martin Thoresen wrote:PS: Don't turn this thread into a Rybka/Fruit/Source code thread.
The Rybka people tend to do that, unfortunately, every time an example is provided of Houdini totally owning Rybka, or Houdini instantly solving a problem that Rybka cannot solve at all.
Ignore the haters, Mr. Houdart. Keep improving your excellent engine.
PS
And by the way, when the fuck is Vas going to fix some of those goddamn bugs in Rybka 4? It's been over 6(!) months now!!
