Ippolit and derivatives will never be favorably accepted.
Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:58 pm
Ippolit, as well as all its derivatives, will not be accepted by the established computer chess community in the way a "usual" chess program is accepted by "reputable" people, rating lists and tournaments. Those who develop engines based on them should accept being given special treatment.
We live in a world with social norms and there is nothing we can do about it. There is no ideal human society, only the "usual" human community govern strongly by social norms. If you are gay and believes in gay marriages, don't ever expect society at large to accept your viewpoint and don't ask about equality and equal treatment for your viewpoint. There is no such thing as social equality. Yes, there is and should be social justice which is not the same thing as equality.
The current opposition to Ippolit stems mainly from:-
1) reversed engineering of Rybka 3.
2) By anonymous or amorphous (possibly non-human) entity.
3) personal dislikes, etc...
The first thing to note is IPPOLIT IS NOT A CLONE OF RYBKA 3. It seems many programmers have established this finding. A well known "cloner" Osipov Yuri said clearly he tried and failed to clone Rybka. Cloning here means using some software tools to decompile an engine to C codes, make some little or "considerable" changes, recompile it as whatever_wini_dini_ . Those who talk about clones should take a test and, given the binary of TSCP, produce a clone for us to see.
About 1), many don't like the idea of someone prying into the private details of another's program, write the C source codes for an engine with knowledge gained this way and make it public. It exposes the details of the inner workings of another's top engine. But there is almost no way to strictly determined if someone steals ideas from another's program. Rybka's supporters are vehemently against others stealing the secrets of Rybka and exposing them to the public domain.
The usual practice of writing a chess program is you "belong" somewhere and known to "well known" people - at least through posting in a chess forum like CCC. When you release your chess program that is 200 elo stronger then Rybka 4, no one question you nor prevent you from entering your program in tournaments. But when you release a program all of a sudden, anonymously, beating all the other top programs and plays like Rybka 3 and with binaries that show similarity with _not_so_well_known_ techniques only found in Rybka 3, then expect that many would accused you of reverse-engineering of Rybka and the program will be ostracized.
About 3), well we all have personal dislikes of many things - like ... I just don't like chess programs with elo greater then 2800...
There is almost no way Ippolit would be accepted. Even if someone would come forward, he has too many things to answer and has to demonstrate he did no reverse engineering of Rybka 3. So this would not happen.
This Ippolit thing would slowly disappear as others would quickly catch up and when those who develop Ippolit lose interests. For the time being, enjoy Houdini - it sets a new benchmark and makes chess programming more interesting and challenging.
Best Regards,
Rasjid
We live in a world with social norms and there is nothing we can do about it. There is no ideal human society, only the "usual" human community govern strongly by social norms. If you are gay and believes in gay marriages, don't ever expect society at large to accept your viewpoint and don't ask about equality and equal treatment for your viewpoint. There is no such thing as social equality. Yes, there is and should be social justice which is not the same thing as equality.
The current opposition to Ippolit stems mainly from:-
1) reversed engineering of Rybka 3.
2) By anonymous or amorphous (possibly non-human) entity.
3) personal dislikes, etc...
The first thing to note is IPPOLIT IS NOT A CLONE OF RYBKA 3. It seems many programmers have established this finding. A well known "cloner" Osipov Yuri said clearly he tried and failed to clone Rybka. Cloning here means using some software tools to decompile an engine to C codes, make some little or "considerable" changes, recompile it as whatever_wini_dini_ . Those who talk about clones should take a test and, given the binary of TSCP, produce a clone for us to see.
About 1), many don't like the idea of someone prying into the private details of another's program, write the C source codes for an engine with knowledge gained this way and make it public. It exposes the details of the inner workings of another's top engine. But there is almost no way to strictly determined if someone steals ideas from another's program. Rybka's supporters are vehemently against others stealing the secrets of Rybka and exposing them to the public domain.
The usual practice of writing a chess program is you "belong" somewhere and known to "well known" people - at least through posting in a chess forum like CCC. When you release your chess program that is 200 elo stronger then Rybka 4, no one question you nor prevent you from entering your program in tournaments. But when you release a program all of a sudden, anonymously, beating all the other top programs and plays like Rybka 3 and with binaries that show similarity with _not_so_well_known_ techniques only found in Rybka 3, then expect that many would accused you of reverse-engineering of Rybka and the program will be ostracized.
About 3), well we all have personal dislikes of many things - like ... I just don't like chess programs with elo greater then 2800...
There is almost no way Ippolit would be accepted. Even if someone would come forward, he has too many things to answer and has to demonstrate he did no reverse engineering of Rybka 3. So this would not happen.
This Ippolit thing would slowly disappear as others would quickly catch up and when those who develop Ippolit lose interests. For the time being, enjoy Houdini - it sets a new benchmark and makes chess programming more interesting and challenging.
Best Regards,
Rasjid
) reasons isn't an accurate rating list.