Houdini Engine Origins

[Merlin]

Perhaps the author of the Ipollit series is the same as the Houdini author.He may have released Ipollit to deceive the world to what he was up to and if it ever was proved that Ipollit was reversed engineered from Rybka 3 then the Houdini author could plead ignorance.It seems strange to me that Robert Houdart is the only author that really understands the ippo source and could use that as an intermediate step to save himself from future attacks.

IMO there is much more at stake than only the best chess programme.
Still it seems there is some kind of "cold war" in the chess world, just like back then with Spassky-Fischer, only now it concerns computer chess.
After all, Rybka carries the American flag, and Rybka is time and again the nut to crack; not only because Rybka is 'the best', but most importantly it is the best AND American - that stings.
It wouldn't surprise me if a big Russian crew supports Houdart's work, grandmasters 'for mother Russia' included, as well as a strategic agenda to further branched engines under different names.
I consider it not a bad thing though: such frictional energy boosts the chess level of engines - perhaps one day they will launch a chess engine to the moon...

[Dr. Ivannik]

Gentlemen

Congratulations to Robert Houdart for destroying the competition and clearly placing Houdini well ahead of all other chess engines.
It is good that the chess analyst no longer has to rely on the former commercial chess engines as most of these are relatively weak
comparatively. Also congratulations to the Ippolit authors for their contributions to improving overall strength of the chess engine.Typically
commercial chess engine authors did nothing but release the next watered down version of their product prior to the holidays to reap
profits for their lack of work and progress. Long live Houdini-Ippolit-The Comrades & The Revolution.

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik

[ThinkingALot]

Perhaps the author of the Ipollit series is the same as the Houdini author... It seems strange to me that Robert Houdart is the only author that really understands the ippo source and could use that as an intermediate step to save himself from future attacks.

The ELO difference between Toga II and Fruit 2.1 is significantly greater than the ELO difference between Houdini and Ivanhoe. Moreover, Houdini employs some kind of contempt which also makes it appear stronger in rating lists. Nevertheless nobody suspects Thomas Gaksch and Fabien Letouzey to be a single person:).

Congratulations to Robert Houdart for destroying the competition and clearly placing Houdini well ahead of all other chess engines.

Competition is not yet destroyed:). Houdini is relatively easy to disassemble... Probably all it's ideas are already implemented in the private versions of Ivanhoe and Rybka.

[xshat]

What's the difference between disassembled code and source code?

[jonpatterns]

The 'source code' is what a program author writes, usually it will include 'comments' explaining what each part of the program does.

This code is then either complied/assembled into an 'executable' file that a computer can run directly,
or it is run on an 'interpreter' which turns it into computer instructions as it goes along.

In a Closed Source or proprietary program the 'end user' is usually only given the compiled executable file (often as part of an installation package). If you look at this file in a text editor it will look like complete gibberish.

A 'decompiler' can disassemble the code, however it will just be a list of computer instructions and data. I skilled program will be able to study this code to find out what it does, and which parts are data and which are code. This is called reverse engineering and is usually illegal in closed source/ proprietary software.

With Open Source there is no need to disassemble - the author is willing to provide the 'Source Code' which includes comments and will be in a easy to read format.

GPL licensed software goes one step further. It ensure that the code stays in the public domain preventing someone else over than the author copyrighting the code. It also ensure any code written from it in the future remains open source. Which is why I don't understand how Fruit 2.1 become closed source?

[BB+]

Which is why I don't understand how Fruit 2.1 become closed source?

Fabien Letouzey retained copyright on Fruit 2.1, and after releasing it under the Gnu GPL in June 2005, he later that year chose to re-use the code in a commercial version. It was not until 2007 that he transferred the Fruit 2.1 copyright to the FSF.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Bumping this topic. Seems to have some relevance to discussions elsewhere.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Talkchess:

I think it's because now Houdini is trying to go commercial with a GPL program without releasing the source code or even admitting its origins.

Funny, for you the problem only arises because Houdini is now commercial?

Let me state one more time, for the record, that Houdini does NOT contain any licensed code, GPL or other, except for the Gaviota probing code which is copyright M. Ballicora.

Let me state one more time, for the record, that I have acknowledged FROM THE START the sources of inspiration for Houdini, unlike most other engine developers (including yourself) who freely use all kind of sources (including Ippolit, Stockfish, etc, apparently now you even use Critter sources) without giving the slightest acknowledgement whatsoever.

Robert

But, Robert, how much unlicensed code, not of your creation, does Houdini contain? Specifically, how much code from IPPOLIT/Robbolito/Ivanhoe does it contain? Approximately?

Don, if you're reading this: IPPOLIT isn't GPL. It's "free" and unlicensed. At least in the US, he can probably legally do whatever he wants with it. In Europe, where Robert lives, copyright protection is automatic and can't be given away, though. Reselling someone else's intellectual property, even if that someone else is anonymous, is at least formally a violation of copyright law.

Jeremy