What should Robert do? (read post first before you vote)

[Uri Blass]

Honesty matters because you got the first 3000 elo for free and that in a competitive field of chess programmers who write their own stuff from the ground up.

LOL

Is that meant to be comic?

Oh my god... the hypocrisy is seriously high in this place.

I would like you (or anybody else) to mention me a program that is on top 10 that has not taken everything it could from Ippo/Robbo or anywhere else when needed (it is not just because you change the implementation that the thing is suddenly different; everybody can do that).

Fabio, as a non chess programmer I realize that it must be hard to sense what it takes to write a 3000 elo chess program from the ground up. If I would have the energy to study Ippo and friends I surely can add 100 elo points to my existing one and it still would be far below 3000.

You seem to be under the impression that taking ideas from open sources magically puts you on top, that's not so. Don recently put it very well.

http://74.220.23.57/forum/viewtopic.php?p=505505#505505

What's far more easy to do is take a 3000 elo open source and add a few of your own (better) ideas to it and gain some 25-50-75 elo with ease. Thereafter things become much more complicated. The credit of Robert is that he added much more than that.

In this competitive field taking the first 3000 elo for free is essential and by denying it an author indirectly is claiming he wrote the first 3000 elo all by himself which is a lie. Robert's contribution to computer chess is about 200 elo, not 3200. That matters.

It is less than 3200 elo but it is also clearly more than 200 elo because improvement from 3000 to 3200 is clearly harder than improvement from 1700 to 2500 and I consider Robert Houdart's achievement as clearly bigger than John boyd's achievement when he started from trace and earned 800 elo(Note that I have nothing against John boyd that was honest about what he is doing)

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~john.boyd/

The source of the 2500 and 1700 numbers is
CCRL 40/4 that has
Trace 1.37a 2509
Tscp 1.81 1708

[Lavir]

You have already shown your talent. I'm not here to amuse clowns so this is my last attempt.

If to be considered talented I would have to be an hypocrite as many here obviously are, I would prefer to be talent-less. Luckily for me I am none of the two.

And btw what has been your previous attempt? At doing what?

It's a huge difference to start at -inf elo vs 3000 elo. But it's pointless to try to explain to you as you obviously don't understand that.

In fact I don't understand that because there's NO difference and you cannot explain it because, again, there's NO difference.

If you start from below but you then incorporate everything that makes a 3000 elo engine play at that strength, there's NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER on starting from that point to begin with or not. The only motive why one can think so is just because of points that have nothing to do with objectivity whatsoever.

For being one that should school me and not being here to clown around you are not doing a good job, I'm telling you.

The list: Stockfish, Komodo, Hiarcs, Chiron.

Oh really? The same Hiarcs that before Ippo source played in a completely different way and then "misteriously" made an huge jump on strenght while changing completely style to play very similar to Rybka and Co.?

The same Komodo of which the authors blatantly admit to see nothing wrong on pillaging ideas fully from other sources (and even RE) as long as you don't copy/paste (as if there would be any difference whatsoever in the two)?

As for Chiron, its "history" is very similar to the one of Hiarcs (mentioned above, along the one of Fritz btw) and in SF sources you can see very clearly the influence of Robbo/Ippo in many points. So, again, I cannot really understand of what the hell you are babbling about.

[Don]

The same Komodo of which the authors blatantly admit to see nothing wrong on pillaging ideas fully from other sources (and even RE) as long as you don't copy/paste (as if there would be any difference whatsoever in the two)?

Please read what has already been posted. This is a completely useless conversation if there is not a conversational flow with a little progress so please consider what Ed posted here and the reference he gives to one of my posts.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 948#505948

Address those points instead of completely ignoring them and repeating your rhetoric over and over again so that this is an actual conversation.

As far as RE I have stated in the past that I see nothing wrong with it but I have spoken with legal experts and now understand it to be illegal. That was not my understanding when I spoke of RE in the past. As it turns out I have not been doing that anyway.

As far as your rhetoric, saying that I "blatantly admit to pillaging ideas from other sources" makes it sound like it's some kind of criminal activity or something. If you want to have a reasonable conversation you need to stop demonizing people for having the audacity to look at program source explicitly created for people to look at and learn from.

I have to say that this conversation is way over your head anyway. You are not a programmer, you don't understand even the most basic principles (see the references above) and you don't even have basic listening skills which given your status is more important than ever.

[Lavir]

If I would have the energy to study Ippo and friends I surely can add 100 elo points to my existing one and it still would be far below 3000.

It depends on what you mean by "study". If you would include everything that makes that engine play at that strength in yours, it will then "jump" to the same elo.

I'm sure that as an experienced chess programmer and studying that source well (understanding at the root what those ideas do) you could do it if you wanted to, and you know it perfectly. It is just that you probably don't want to for other motives but not because you CANNOT.

You seem to be under the impression that taking ideas from open sources magically puts you on top, that's not so. Don recently put it very well.

It depends on what you intend for "ideas". If you take all the ideas that make that engine play at that strength OBVIOUSLY your engine will play at that level too.

The "soul" of a program (of whatever type) resides on the ideas inside the same. Implementation of those is just a mechanical work, and every programmer can come up with a different implementation for a given idea, but the important part, the "idea" will not change (it is true that implementation for some ideas can form part of the idea itself, but there's always a way to extract the implementation from the idea and approach the thing from another angle if it is indispensable).

So, you cannot really expect me to believe that the only way to reproduce the strength of Ippo/Robbo is by copy/past the sources elsewhere there's no other way around. The culprit is not certainly in the implementation of the code itself, but on the ideas undermining the same.

Given this, it is hypocrisy believing that if you copy/past source you are copying while if instead you copy all the ideas and implement them in a different manner instead you are creating "original" work, isn't it?

What's far more easy to do is take a 3000 elo open source and add a few of your own (better) ideas to it and gain some 25-50-75 elo with ease.

More than "easier" I think that it's much faster. Maybe it can be much easier for someone that has not idea of what those ideas really do, but in this case you would not be able to put a relevant strength increase on top of it anyway.

The only way to do so is to understand the ideas that make the work be as effective as it is at the root, and improve/add upon them (and naturally to do something as that you NEED to know what they are and how they work from inside-out, elsewhere it is much probable that you will not go far, if not go backwards). In this case, then, copy/paste source or take all the ideas and implement them differently make no difference whatsoever because you are able without problems to do both and the difference just resides on the time "wasted" (because since you can do the thing without problems given time, you are just cutting corners for a futile thing).

So in this case why copying source should be "worse" than "just" copying the ideas but implementing them differently? (And btw it's much probable that you want to implement those ideas in a better way anyway even if you start pasting a source to make them work better). Don't you think that it makes no sense at all and it is a bit hypocrite to think so?

Think a little about this, and then tell me, sincerely.

[hgm]

You seem to have a short memory span. So let me remind you:

It was just a mention to the fact that you post links without either reading them and without understanding of what they talk about. HT had NOTHING to do with it, it was just used as a mention to make you understand the point.

As always you did put a link without either reading anything at all of what is written in it, as you have done the other time with Hyper Threading.

Seems to me you brought up Hyper Threading there. Actually it seems that with the 'as always' and 'as you have done' you actually fabricated a ly to attack me, as the alleged HT link is in fact non-existent, as everyone will be able to verify.

So now you have been exposed as one, explain us why I should discuss anything with a viscious liar? There seems to be little point in that, as everything you claim to be or to have done can just as easily be a ly. Why should I believe you have done any translations at all, and are not just making that up?

I'm a well known writer and painter in my country. I have a PhD in literature and arts, a thesis in philosophy that is discussed in the university of Florence, I am one of the best known people in esoteric circles and I have done so many things in my life that you would dream about doing. Is it that enough for your ego? [Oh and please don't say I'm bragging; you asked, I replied]

An author of fiction, no doubt! But nothing technical, eh? Nothing involving computer Chess? (What did you think the 'here' in my question referred to?) Or does your knowledge on the subject come from esotiric sources? That you also seem to think yourself to be an authority on what I dream about is beyond hilarious...

But apart all this, you yet again didn't reply to my question (a very simple and direct one) and talked of things completely off-topic.

Giving you a lesson in manners and humility seems to be more urgent...

Is it possible that you cannot admit that you were wrong?

P.S: Btw if in ever once in your life *you* will be right and I wrong in whatsoever argument, it will probably mean that the end or the world is near. Believe me, you have no possibility against me, there's no way. Just a friendly hint.

From the second quote that seems that is more your department, wouldn't you say? Seems your world is already finished, because you were wrong about the hyper-threading link. Or don't you consider lying the same thing as being wrong?

[Lavir]

Address those points instead of completely ignoring them and repeating your rhetoric over and over again so that this is an actual conversation.

Already did. You want to read my reply to Ed above, thanks.

(Btw you don't seem to understand what the word "rhetoric" really means in philosophical terms, because it is completely out of scope on the points I'm making.)

If you want to have a reasonable conversation you need to stop demonizing people for having the audacity to look at program source explicitly created for people to look at and learn from.

And you say this to ME, when you and many others are demonizing Robert all around for something that everyone of you has done in the same way (again, I repeat: there's no difference from taking all ideas that make a program strong and implement them differently or just copy/past them, NONE, from an ethical standpoint that it's the one you are accusing Robert with)?

Oh well....

I have to say that this conversation is way over your head anyway. You are not a programmer, you don't understand even the most basic principles (see the references above) and you don't even have basic listening skills which given your status is more important than ever.

Since you want to play the pantomime of "who has the longer d*ck", let me ogblige... I've "worked" as an hacker when I was much younger. I was in the the then named "Immortal" team. I probably know more about programming than you do (or at last I did).

Apart this, I know more about philosophy (so rhetoric, what constitutes an idea and its principles - I actually gave an hint you a time before with Adorno and Heiddeger) and such than probably you and all of your "friends" know altogether since I studied them extensively and even wrote treatises on the same.

So, you see, your attempt at denigrating me as not adapt for your "superiority" on the matter backfired a little. Even if I really was inferior to you on this point, trying to play the card already demonstrated how much in difficulty you are, and how much probably something I said earlier has hurt your ego a little.

[Lavir]

snip...

OMG.

Listen, since I don't care to go on with this futile discussion on egotic trips with you, let me restate the question once more, hoping that you will FINALLY reply to the same without talking of things completely different just to don't do it.

Do you REALLY believe that translating captions in a source can constitute Intellectual Proprierty material and you can ENFORCE (legally, not with words) the same?

Just a simple yes or no, thanks.

[hgm]

Even the question is meaningless. What are 'captions'?

And, like I said, I have no intention to answer anything before we cleared up the matter of you spreading lies about me...

[velmarin]

Do you REALLY believe that translating captions in a source can constitute Intellectual Proprierty material and you can ENFORCE (legally, not with words) the same?

Just a simple yes or no, thanks.

My friend Fabio.
I am among those who have come late to these controversies,
Incredibly always read,
inposible to understand language in an ******* italiano_

I like Spanish, Latin language, I am very comfortable with the original language, Italian is beautiful, beautiful.

Certainly for the archive,
Robbolito was translated before the 0.85g3 version, meaning that the issue of translation does not serve as GPL.



Fuente:
http://open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2248&start=20

Code: Select all

Trivial is too strong a word. Simple fits it better.
I noticed some guys on CCC believing the translation to be a great accomplishment (for example: "Here Norman and Milos did a huge translation job and made the free Robbolito source code understandable in English", Ed Shroder, http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47073). Well, this is how it is done. You just pick the source files one by one (starting with headers), look for Italian words, pick one, open the quick replace dialog in visual studio, look up the word translation using Google Translate, pick the best fitting translation, click the "Replace All" button. As you progress through the files it becomes easier to understand the code. I was half through the process myself when Kranium's version appeared. My estimate is 2h-4h for the entire translation. And this translation is already present in 0.85d3.
Btw, bugfixing and porting to Windows was probably done by Yuri Osipov. I managed to google this: "RobboLito RobboLito 0.084 x86 sources and exe for Windows by Y.Osipov" (from a post on immortal forum).
ThinkingALot
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:32 am

Robbolito, 0.85d3
http://www.mediafire.com/?gijdztzjy238cyc

[Don]

Address those points instead of completely ignoring them and repeating your rhetoric over and over again so that this is an actual conversation.

Already did. You want to read my reply to Ed above, thanks.

Your response was disguised as a response, it was not a real one. You completely ignored the real point so it was not a response at all.

You basically said that it's easy if you "copy" verbatim everything in every detail. You said that without actually using the word copy, basically advocating either copying or building a semantically identical program.

(Btw you don't seem to understand what the word "rhetoric" really means in philosophical terms, because it is completely out of scope on the points I'm making.)

If you want to have a reasonable conversation you need to stop demonizing people for having the audacity to look at program source explicitly created for people to look at and learn from.

And you say this to ME, when you and many others are demonizing Robert all around for something that everyone of you has done in the same way (again, I repeat: there's no difference from taking all ideas that make a program strong and implement them differently or just copy/past them, NONE, from an ethical standpoint that it's the one you are accusing Robert with)?

I have not been demonizing Robert. I have been trying to have an honest conversation. In the past I have in fact been pretty harsh and I still have bad feelings about what was done and do not back down on that, but I have discovered there is nothing I can do about it and that it is something we will have to live with and I might as well get along with him and everyone else. Show me a recent post where I have been "demonized" Robert. I'm waiting ....

Oh well....

I have to say that this conversation is way over your head anyway. You are not a programmer, you don't understand even the most basic principles (see the references above) and you don't even have basic listening skills which given your status is more important than ever.

Since you want to play the pantomime of "who has the longer d*ck", let me ogblige... I've "worked" as an hacker when I was much younger. I was in the the then named "Immortal" team. I probably know more about programming than you do (or at last I did).

That explains why you don't understand the reference I gave you. You used the same approach of starting with a strong program so of course you don't understand the difference. That is why you defend it.

Apart this, I know more about philosophy (so rhetoric, what constitutes an idea and its principles - I actually gave an hint you a time before with Adorno and Heiddeger) and such than probably you and all of your "friends" know altogether since I studied them extensively and even wrote treatises on the same.

Philosophy is a very empty thing. There is huge body of philosophy and most of it is complete nonsense. Just one example, study Plato and Socrates and see their philosophy on life after death. You will never impress me by talking philosophy, an "art" where you can say and believe anything and make it seem intelligent.

So, you see, your attempt at denigrating me as not adapt for your "superiority" on the matter backfired a little. Even if I really was inferior to you on this point, trying to play the card already demonstrated how much in difficulty you are, and how much probably something I said earlier has hurt your ego a little.

You need philosophy to feel superior? If you cannot appreciate real science and factual thing you gravitate to philosophy, the study of peoples opinions.