Houdini 1.5 is released

[Roger Brown]

We all have roles on the team. If they were not significant roles, do you think we would be listed on the team? Jim Albett compiles Crafty, but do you see him on the team listing?

When was the last time you actually created something _original_, and not just trying to pass off someone's work as your own, let alone sell it? What exactly is your role in Houdini other than being a mouth piece for the "Ippolit movement"?

Sadly I am not quite up to your level.

The license for Crafty is what it is. Robert Houdart states he took ideas from Crafty and others, and I would like to see just how much _actual_ code is there.

It is quite obvious that he took the Ippolit code, improved it somewhat, and is being hailed as some new realm of computer chess. Do you actually think any Tournament Director on the planet will allow him to enter with it? Not a chance.

Do you think that any Tournament Director will allow _any_ of the Ippolit clones to enter any major tournament? Not a chance.

You are a fool with a mouth. That is all.

Hello Peter Skinner,

I am afraid that you might need to add me to that list of fools.

Ideas do not equal code unless I have missed something.

Demanding that code be released seems to presume that you or any member of the Crafty team has a right to make such demands. That right would have to come from some basis apart from wanting to satisfy your desire to know, correct?

As for the TD position, I agree with you here. Any TD may enforce their rules, including and excluding any engine they desire. Nothing wrong with that. However you are sadly mistaken if you think that the buzz around this engine has one iota to do with whether it will be allowed to compete at some event or not.

All of the buzz is speaking to the strength of the thing, that it is abusing the top of the commercial and free engine food chain.

I am neither an apologist or a mouthpiece but it irks considerably that demands are made in this case with nothing more than your desire to satisfy your need to know how much - which means you currently have no idea - Crafty code is in the engine whereas in other cases (with at least some [inconclusive?] evidence) these demands for code were at best muted.

Sigh.

Calling it a clone when the [invalid] argument of the defenders of that other engine was "this is the strongest there is so it benefited little from engine X which was there before and which it now outdistances" seems odd to say the least.

I do not accept the sheer strength argument BUT if it was advanced and accepted as a decisive reason why engine X could not have come from engine Y, then why are you denying that something original may have been created here as well?

I would like to know the truth (whatever that means) too but your demands seem unreasonable at the present moment given what we do not know.

And no, I have never written a chess engine....or even compiled one.

Later.

[Peter Skinner]

Hello Peter Skinner,

I am afraid that you might need to add me to that list of fools.

Ideas do not equal code unless I have missed something.

Demanding that code be released seems to presume that you or any member of the Crafty team has a right to make such demands. That right would have to come from some basis apart from wanting to satisfy your desire to know, correct?

As for the TD position, I agree with you here. Any TD may enforce their rules, including and excluding any engine they desire. Nothing wrong with that. However you are sadly mistaken if you think that the buzz around this engine has one iota to do with whether it will be allowed to compete at some event or not.

All of the buzz is speaking to the strength of the thing, that it is abusing the top of the commercial and free engine food chain.

I am neither an apologist or a mouthpiece but it irks considerably that demands are made in this case with nothing more than your desire to satisfy your need to know how much - which means you currently have no idea - Crafty code is in the engine whereas in other cases (with at least some [inconclusive?] evidence) these demands for code were at best muted.

Sigh.

Calling it a clone when the [invalid] argument of the defenders of that other engine was "this is the strongest there is so it benefited little from engine X which was there before and which it now outdistances" seems odd to say the least.

I do not accept the sheer strength argument BUT if it was advanced and accepted as a decisive reason why engine X could not have come from engine Y, then why are you denying that something original may have been created here as well?

I would like to know the truth (whatever that means) too but your demands seem unreasonable at the present moment given what we do not know.

And no, I have never written a chess engine....or even compiled one.

Later.

It is a clone. Do you honestly believe he took "ideas" from Ippolit, Crafty, Stockfish and wrote a 3200 engine from scratch in a few months?

Please tell me you aren't that blind to the fact of what Houdini is? If so, I have a hell of a deal on a bridge with a prime location in San Fransisco. Some would call it a "Golden" opportunity. Interested?

Peter

[Roger Brown]

It is a clone. Do you honestly believe he took "ideas" from Ippolit, Crafty, Stockfish and wrote a 3200 engine from scratch in a few months?

Please tell me you aren't that blind to the fact of what Houdini is? If so, I have a hell of a deal on a bridge with a prime location in San Fransisco. Some would call it a "Golden" opportunity. Interested?

Peter

Hello Peter,

I ask for evidence and look at what I get.

An assertion - it is a clone.

End of that discussion I suppose. No need for any evidence, just go with whatever gut feeling and suspicions that you or anyone else might have at the moment. There was a long thread about science and computer-chess. Asserting and believing would seem to be a part of religion and faith related activities, not computer-chess.

What I believe is not really important here. I believe a great many things. I believe, for instance, that when an engine shows a dramatic increase in strength when its antecedent was unremarkable, it is worthy of a second look. I tend to require evidence before proceeding to make strident demands that people do or do not do something on the basis of my belief and/or suspicions however.

Then there are the insults and the gratuitous sarcasm. As is my custom, I will not respond to your jibes and comments. I simply question their relevance in assisting you to make your point. Apart from impressing yourself with what passes for a witticism, precisely what have you offered to substantiate your assertions?

Later.

[Peter Skinner]

Hello Peter,

I ask for evidence and look at what I get.

An assertion - it is a clone.

End of that discussion I suppose. No need for any evidence, just go with whatever gut feeling and suspicions that you or anyone else might have at the moment. There was a long thread about science and computer-chess. Asserting and believing would seem to be a part of religion and faith related activities, not computer-chess.

What I believe is not really important here. I believe a great many things. I believe, for instance, that when an engine shows a dramatic increase in strength when its antecedent was unremarkable, it is worthy of a second look. I tend to require evidence before proceeding to make strident demands that people do or do not do something on the basis of my belief and/or suspicions however.

Then there are the insults and the gratuitous sarcasm. As is my custom, I will not respond to your jibes and comments. I simply question their relevance in assisting you to make your point. Apart from impressing yourself with what passes for a witticism, precisely what have you offered to substantiate your assertions?

Later.

I don't know why I am even arguing about this. It is unlikely that Houdart will release the code for everyone to see.

On another forum (The Ippolit forums), even they see it as a clone.

[Graham Banks]

On another forum (The Ippolit forums), even they see it as a clone.

Plus there's this post there:

the size of houdini compiles points towards the mini nalimove end game bases being included ,they are extremly small but highly effective , one of the winiboard GUIs has them built into it, and would account for its end game knowledge

it may account for Robert Houdunits reluctance to honour his word to show his source code ....

any doubters such bases or GUI exists may like to see

Portable setup of Winboard 4.5b(master build 07.08.2010.)

interstingly ...guess whoose engine is also included in package ?

[Dave Mitchell]

Taking an assertion from "somebody", without any facts, is no better than making your own assertions without the facts. If you have some facts - please show them. If you have no facts - please pipe down Let's not pre-judge the matter by gossip.

Whatever the facts are regarding Houdini's origin, it's clear that Robert has added a nice increase in strength over his previous version, in a very short amount of time. That is something we should be celebrating, not bad-mouthing before the facts are known.

[Graham Banks]

Taking an assertion from "somebody", without any facts, is no better than making your own assertions without the facts. If you have some facts - please show them. If you have no facts - please pipe down Let's not pre-judge the matter by gossip.

Whatever the facts are regarding Houdini's origin, it's clear that Robert has added a nice increase in strength over his previous version, in a very short amount of time. That is something we should be celebrating, not bad-mouthing before the facts are known.

Then you might find this little exchange humorous in a thread asking members to come here and vote in the poll:

Poster 1
Those who vote against Houdini a clone, than what you are guided?

Poster 2
May I ask how it's going to help Houdini's case if it is clone ? We all want Houdini not to be clone so it can be allowed to play where it is not allowed. Why vote against it ? Sorry, but I don't follow the logic.

[gaard]

Taking an assertion from "somebody", without any facts, is no better than making your own assertions without the facts. If you have some facts - please show them. If you have no facts - please pipe down Let's not pre-judge the matter by gossip.

Whatever the facts are regarding Houdini's origin, it's clear that Robert has added a nice increase in strength over his previous version, in a very short amount of time. That is something we should be celebrating, not bad-mouthing before the facts are known.

Then you might find this little exchange humorous in a thread asking members to come here and vote in the poll:

Poster 1
Those who vote against Houdini a clone, than what you are guided?

Poster 2
May I ask how it's going to help Houdini's case if it is clone ? We all want Houdini not to be clone so it can be allowed to play where it is not allowed. Why vote against it ? Sorry, but I don't follow the logic.

What is humorous is taking part in derailing a thread about the release of a new chess engine with implications of cloning and misconduct after vehemently opposing the same thing in your moderation term and pushing to have the _Engine Origins_ forum set up for this exact reason.

[Graham Banks]

Taking an assertion from "somebody", without any facts, is no better than making your own assertions without the facts. If you have some facts - please show them. If you have no facts - please pipe down Let's not pre-judge the matter by gossip.

Whatever the facts are regarding Houdini's origin, it's clear that Robert has added a nice increase in strength over his previous version, in a very short amount of time. That is something we should be celebrating, not bad-mouthing before the facts are known.

Then you might find this little exchange humorous in a thread asking members to come here and vote in the poll:

Poster 1
Those who vote against Houdini a clone, than what you are guided?

Poster 2
May I ask how it's going to help Houdini's case if it is clone ? We all want Houdini not to be clone so it can be allowed to play where it is not allowed. Why vote against it ? Sorry, but I don't follow the logic.

What is humorous is taking part in derailing a thread about the release of a new chess engine with implications of cloning and misconduct after vehemently opposing the same thing in your moderation term and pushing to have the _Engine Origins_ forum set up for this exact purpose.

The Engine Origins subforum was not my idea, but myself and all of the other moderators at the time agreed to it.
Ask Milos because he says he knows the contents of the hidden moderators only subforum. Not sure who gave him access or copied the contents for him though.

[Uri Blass]

Hello Peter Skinner,

I am afraid that you might need to add me to that list of fools.

Ideas do not equal code unless I have missed something.

Demanding that code be released seems to presume that you or any member of the Crafty team has a right to make such demands. That right would have to come from some basis apart from wanting to satisfy your desire to know, correct?

As for the TD position, I agree with you here. Any TD may enforce their rules, including and excluding any engine they desire. Nothing wrong with that. However you are sadly mistaken if you think that the buzz around this engine has one iota to do with whether it will be allowed to compete at some event or not.

All of the buzz is speaking to the strength of the thing, that it is abusing the top of the commercial and free engine food chain.

I am neither an apologist or a mouthpiece but it irks considerably that demands are made in this case with nothing more than your desire to satisfy your need to know how much - which means you currently have no idea - Crafty code is in the engine whereas in other cases (with at least some [inconclusive?] evidence) these demands for code were at best muted.

Sigh.

Calling it a clone when the [invalid] argument of the defenders of that other engine was "this is the strongest there is so it benefited little from engine X which was there before and which it now outdistances" seems odd to say the least.

I do not accept the sheer strength argument BUT if it was advanced and accepted as a decisive reason why engine X could not have come from engine Y, then why are you denying that something original may have been created here as well?

I would like to know the truth (whatever that means) too but your demands seem unreasonable at the present moment given what we do not know.

And no, I have never written a chess engine....or even compiled one.

Later.

It is a clone. Do you honestly believe he took "ideas" from Ippolit, Crafty, Stockfish and wrote a 3200 engine from scratch in a few months?

Please tell me you aren't that blind to the fact of what Houdini is? If so, I have a hell of a deal on a bridge with a prime location in San Fransisco. Some would call it a "Golden" opportunity. Interested?

Peter

I do not believe that based on ideas from Ippolit,Crafty and stockfish he wrote a 3200 engine from scratch in a few months but we do not know when he started but only when he released the first version and these things may be different.

It is possible that he started some years ago to learn from crafty and from Glaurung and started to write his engine in 2006.

I do not claim that Houdini is not a derivative of Ippolit(I do not know) but you need a better argument to convince me that it is a derivative of Ippolit(I prefer the word derivative and not a clone when there is a clear strength improvement even if 99% of the code is the same).

Uri