diep wrote:Disassembling houdini isn't needed. it's total trivial that it's using the same evalution like all the clones do.
You haven't got a clue.
In fact if we kick out the deep futility out of ivanhoe, which is an obvious and illegal Rybka/Fruit clone, and add a very old years 90 extension, then we have Houdini.
So your "5 ideas" taken over, where are they?
diep wrote:With Richard i assume you mean Richard Vida. Is that correct?
Can you point out which ideas Richard Vida took over?
What exactly do I gain by pointing out in detail what was copied?
Robert
For someone who didn't invent a thing you have an incredible big mouth.
Houdini wrote:You really haven't got a clue about Houdini.
If it looks like a space shuttle, if it makes the big noise and if it can resupply ISS, if it docks at the same port like space shuttle, shows the same evaluation function, takes the same decisions only the clones make and not 1 original authors engine is doing all that the same, if the authors name is yet another fake name, maybe it's the space shuttle?
Houdini wrote:He has always claimed nothing of his findings ended up in Critter, but it would be very easy for me to demonstrate that Critter post version 1.0 contains a non-trivial number (more than 5) of ideas/code taken directly from Houdini 1.5a.
You could tell us but then you'd have to shoot us?
diep wrote:Disassembling houdini isn't needed. it's total trivial that it's using the same evalution like all the clones do.
You haven't got a clue.
In fact if we kick out the deep futility out of ivanhoe, which is an obvious and illegal Rybka/Fruit clone, and add a very old years 90 extension, then we have Houdini.
If you don't mind please let us know exactly what years old "90" extension you are referring to. Frankly, if some old idea has been shown to help a modern program, I'd like to try it in Komodo. Regarding "deep futility", are you saying that Houdini reduced the maximum depth at which Ivanhoe does futility? If so we already use less plies of futility than Ivanhoe in Komodo. Do you think this reduction could explain a significant part of the elo gain of Houdini 1.5 over Houdini 1.0/Ivanhoe?
For the record, I don't think we are using any original Houdini ideas in Komodo, if there are any. I think we are using one or two Stockfish ideas that found their way into Houdini.
This raises another question: Is looking at decompiled code for the purpose of seeing what old ideas have been resurrected in a different ethical category than looking at decompiled code for original ideas?
lkaufman wrote:I also think it makes no sense to prohibit something that is completely undetectable and unprovable. You cannot tell if someone desassebled another program, you can only tell if they copied the details to a point that proved that they had to have decompiled the program.
In general such acts are neither undetectable nor unprovable. A person committing the act might e.g. openly admit it, or the results of the act or traces of it can be detected on his computer system, or in documents or e-mails.
A couple of real examples:
1) Regarding Larry.
There was a public forum discussion in which Larry encouraged other persons to disassemble Houdini and discuss the findings. He even reported back on testing certain changes to Komodo as a result of these discussions.
The bottom-line is that this "code of honor" remains empty talk when the #2 and #3 engines freely use RE of the #1 engine, apparently to the universal approval of the forum members.
Robert
Since Houdini itself is a clone of a program (Ippolit) that was clearly based on disassembled Rybka code even though greatly modified, I think it's pretty funny that you object to others decompiling Houdini. I would not encourage others to decompile an original program. In my view Houdini forfeits any rights to object to others disassembling it due to its own origin. I don't think we have used any original Houdini ideas in Komodo, but that's because there are so few of them, not because we consider it wrong to do so.
lkaufman wrote: If you don't mind please let us know exactly what years old "90" extension you are referring to. Frankly, if some old idea has been shown to help a modern program, I'd like to try it in Komodo. Regarding "deep futility", are you saying that Houdini reduced the maximum depth at which Ivanhoe does futility? If so we already use less plies of futility than Ivanhoe in Komodo. Do you think this reduction could explain a significant part of the elo gain of Houdini 1.5 over Houdini 1.0/Ivanhoe?
For the record, I don't think we are using any original Houdini ideas in Komodo, if there are any. I think we are using one or two Stockfish ideas that found their way into Houdini.
This raises another question: Is looking at decompiled code for the purpose of seeing what old ideas have been resurrected in a different ethical category than looking at decompiled code for original ideas?
There you do it again: pushing somebody else to reveal some "secret" about Houdini that could only have been obtained by RE.
You really, really don't get it, do you?
lkaufman wrote: Since Houdini itself is a clone of a program (Ippolit) that was clearly based on disassembled Rybka code even though greatly modified, I think it's pretty funny that you object to others decompiling Houdini. I would not encourage others to decompile an original program. In my view Houdini forfeits any rights to object to others disassembling it due to its own origin. I don't think we have used any original Houdini ideas in Komodo, but that's because there are so few of them, not because we consider it wrong to do so.
I don't agree. We assume Houdini is a combination of Ippolit and Robert's improvements. The Ippolit portions are freely available to anybody. Robert's improvements if he doesn't want to share them should get the same protection from RE as they would if they were housed in a program he wrote from scratch.
