but you don't have to use it...
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
I believe that Houdini is derivative of Ippolit butCThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."
Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.
Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
That thread is not about Houdini1.5 but about an older version.Graham Banks wrote:http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.
There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
That was the thread Lance?
Houdini .1.5 is based on an older Houdini version, actually the previous one, since its author says in his webpage that Houdini's 1.5 evaluation and search has been improved and he presents this fact in a way that you can directly imply that he builds and improves Houdini based on the same code and not writing from scratch each time.Uri Blass wrote:That thread is not about Houdini1.5 but about an older version.Graham Banks wrote:http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.
There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
That was the thread Lance?
Of course the default assumption should be that Houdini1.5 is based on an older version of Houdini and usually programmers who start from scratch with a new engine also choose a different name for the new engine.
Thank you for that analysis. Those who can’t get there via Graham’s link can use this one (www in place)CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."
Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.
Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
Totally agreed here Damir....another fast clone my a$$Damir wrote:Mr Rybka Fan Boy Watson,
I think you need to open up your eyes, as it is quite clear you are living in a dream world.. You need to come back to reality, and stop writting bullshit like this.
One of the most reasonable statements I've ever read among the huge hill of crap that was wrriten mainly by the pissed off Rybka fanboys....Uri Blass wrote:I believe that Houdini is derivative of Ippolit butCThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."
Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.
Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?
There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.
Houdini is stronger than Ippolit so I disagree it is nothing but an Ippolit.
I do not know how much code is changed from Ippolit to Houdini but even if the change is the same as fruit-toga then I am not calling toga nothing but a fruit.
Improving Ippolit by more than 50 elo is clearly an achievement that I respect and I saw no proof that Ippolit is illegal(I consider it as a bigger achievement than improving fruit to toga because it is easier to improve weaker engines).
About living in a dream world Gabor....that what I agree withSzG wrote:Agree with what, Wael? I did not know you supported pure offense. The above sentences contain nothing else...Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Totally agreed here Damir....another fast clone my a$$Damir wrote:Mr Rybka Fan Boy Watson,
I think you need to open up your eyes, as it is quite clear you are living in a dream world.. You need to come back to reality, and stop writting bullshit like this.
Of course, if those words were directed at me, I would realize immediately what an utter nonsense I had written.