New Engine: Robodini 1.1 w32 & x64 !!!

[ThinkingALot]

Btw, in 0.085g3 one can still encounter "altezza", "move_hole" etc.

[Prima]

Robert started Houdini from GPL RobboLito version put out by Norm and Milos.

We don't know for sure

And again, I refer you to these 2 links exposing similarities between the GPL'ed RobboLito, v0.085g3, AND Houdini:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... t&start=44
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... 7&start=10
Notice that when asked to explain the similarities between Robbolito 0.085g3 and Houdini in move-choice, ponder hit, PV outputs etc, Robert Houdart evades such questions. Just as Vas Rajlich' unfounded accusations that IPPOLIT was a decomplied Rybka 3 didn't make it so - especially in light of the fact he refused to support claim, the same logic also applies to Robert Houdart: denying and inculcating that Houdini is original does not mean he's telling the truth. CONCRETE evidence from those 2 links says he's lying.

Then WHY did RH go after a [GPL] refined Robbolito 0.085g3 and not stick with 0.085d3 that was Public Domain and free of any legal obligations/compliance?

Probably simple recklessness if this is indeed the case.

You do realize that pleading "a mistake" or "ignorance" or whatever excuse RH can fathom for violating a GPL code is no excuse to go "Scott free" in the court of law? ...especially as he seems to act as if he knows the laws and is the one pursuing legal actions for what he thinks is a violation of HIS illegal commercial Houdini.

What Kranium & Sentinel did was not trivial

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).

But Kranium and Sentinel did do more than just translation of another language to English. They fixed MANY bugs and added useful features as "ponder hit", "Hash fixes" etc. Contribution of Kranium & Sentinel are enumerated here: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 99&t=47045
Again, why did Robert Houdart by-pass Robbolito 0.085d3 - also released by Kranium & Sentinel as Public Domain code -and went after the much refined, stronger, and GPL'ed Robbolito 0.085g3? He could have picked ANY of the Public Domain and not have to worry about breaking the license restrictions and/or the law.
I know you're trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but in all honesty, it's hard for one to ignore the damning proof and the motive for RH stealing from a GPL'ed engine. I say "stealing" because his covetousness of the GPL Robbolito 0.085g3 involved a conscious decision and the false claim of originality relative to Houdini (when evidence says otherwise), and the refusal to acknowledge & pay proper attribute to Kranium & Sentinel, in PRINT, that Houdini is based on a GPL Robbolito 0.085g3. These actions not only paints him as a law breaker, but also as a liar and a thief - irrespective of whether he added ELO to Robbolito 0.085g3 or not.

He's blowing his trumpet on the laws and legal actions which he himself disregarded and is clearly not cognizant in that domain. What will his excuse be when his disregard for the GPL-license laws of [GPL]Robbolito 0.085g3 is brought up? Either this guy is seriously deluded or his greed has truly blinded him to the point of assuming prerogatives in breaking the license-laws and not suffer any consequences. I can't tell which....

[ThinkingALot]

And again, I refer you to these 2 links exposing similarities between the GPL'ed RobboLito, v0.085g3, AND Houdini:

Stop applying faulty logic of a five year old. "A is similar to B" doesn't imply "A is a derivative of B" since both A and B may be derivatives of C.

Robert Houdart evades such questions

What RH does is irrelevant here. We are discussing a simple question: was it proved that H1.03 is a derivative of 0.085g3? The answer is no. It may be likely but that's not sufficient to claim it 100% proven. To make such a claim you need to find a piece of code satisfying several conditions (http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... =20#p18301).

[Prima]

And again, I refer you to these 2 links exposing similarities between the GPL'ed RobboLito, v0.085g3, AND Houdini:

Stop applying faulty logic of a five year old. "A is similar to B" doesn't imply "A is a derivative of B" since both A and B may be derivatives of C.

Robert Houdart evades such questions

Okay you don't like the evidence presented showing Houdini to be a direct prodigy of [GPL]Robbolito 0.085g3, so THAT becomes a faulty, childish logic. Your choice. But there's a simple logic and theory following the Occam's Razor. And these very facts have been accepted by the computer chess community. Coupled with RH tactically dodging this very question to date; without a simple "yea" or "nay"...

What RH does is irrelevant here. We are discussing a simple question: was it proved that H1.03 is a derivative of 0.085g3? The answer is no. It may be likely but that's not sufficient to claim it 100% proven. To make such a claim you need to find a piece of code satisfying several conditions (http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... =20#p18301).

We seem to be engaging in tautology.

What Robert Houdart did/do IS relevant. Aren't all these phenomenal fiasco and discussions, occurring in internet foras, a direct result of WHAT Robert Houdart did/does, or the LACK thereof - in terms of proper attribution to authors of the GPL'ed Robbolito 0.085g3 ? Isn't the very question you're posing now relative to whether H1.03 is a derivative of the GPL R0.085g3 or not resulted from the comparisons of H1.03'S PV outputs, ponder-hit, evaluations, and move-choice versus that of GPL R0.085g3 - which is ALSO a direct result of WHAT Robert Houdart did?
Besides yourself, have you found ANYONE else including programmers, refuting the evidence from the 2 links provided? I'm not clairvoyant but I'm guessing "no".
From the web page of Houdini:

Without many ideas and techniques from the open source chess engines Ippolit and Stockfish, Houdini would not nearly be as strong as it is now.

[/quote]

'Seems to me it was more than JUST ideas from IPPOLIT, seeing how H1.03's output matched that of R0.085g3 in all areas, unless Houdini's code are verbatim to that of Robbolito 0.085g3. Coincidence? To believe that RH just used IPPOLIT ideas which happened to produce exact pv outputs, ponder hits, move choice and analysis etc. is just being plain naive.


Again, Occam's Razor...

[ThinkingALot]

evidence presented showing Houdini to be a direct prodigy of [GPL]Robbolito 0.085g3

There's no such evidence. Can you list the differences between 0.085g3 and 0.085d3?

so THAT becomes a faulty, childish logic.

Sure. Even an average six year old is smart enough to see that your logic is flawed. No logic beyond childish one is needed

And these very facts have been accepted by the computer chess community.

A bunch of active members of two forums and entire ccc are two very different things.

To believe that RH just used IPPOLIT ideas which happened to produce exact pv outputs, ponder hits, move choice and analysis etc. is just being plain naive.

No one believes so now. I abandoned this belief long ago when I checked the H1.5a disassembly with IDA.

Besides yourself, have you found ANYONE else including programmers, refuting the evidence from the 2 links provided?

Sure. http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... =&start=20, Julien MARCEL (author of Prédateur) writes:
"Regarding Houdini, and IF Houdini started from public domain code, Robert Houdart did nothing illegal."
This IF indicates clearly the absense of 100% evidence to the contrary.

[ThinkingALot]

Btw, http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... =&start=20, jose mº velasco writes:
"With Visual Studio, take three or four hours to make a decent translation." Matches my estimate of 2h-4h.

Aren't all these phenomenal fiasco and discussions, occurring in internet foras, a direct result of WHAT Robert Houdart did/does, or the LACK thereof - in terms of proper attribution to authors of the GPL'ed Robbolito 0.085g3

This "fiasco and discussions" are a great fun! If such a good show is inspired solely by RH, he has my thanks

[velmarin]

Btw, http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... =&start=20, jose mº velasco writes:
"With Visual Studio, take three or four hours to make a decent translation." Matches my estimate of 2h-4h.

Aren't all these phenomenal fiasco and discussions, occurring in internet foras, a direct result of WHAT Robert Houdart did/does, or the LACK thereof - in terms of proper attribution to authors of the GPL'ed Robbolito 0.085g3

This "fiasco and discussions" are a great fun! If such a good show is inspired solely by RH, he has my thanks

True, as I put Talkchess,
I am comfortable with Italian, being Spanish.
At first I was translating the programs into Spanish, I finally decided to succumb to English, with some Spanish words.

If each person making a file changes robbo, Ivan, ect, change some terms could put a GPL, different.
Few would now,
Place a GPL does not give Norman a property that does not tire in claim
Even the name is appropriate.

Robbolito 10 and 20 ,are Ivanhoe code, not robbo whith SMP, is IvanHoe code.
However never tires of criticizing others .
In my opinion the fact by Norman does not fit the Public Domain,

[Prima]

There's no such evidence. Can you list the differences between 0.085g3 and 0.085d3?

Sure. I'll have to dig up the downloads of R0.085d3 and R0.085g3 and check their "readme.txt" or something listing it's improvements and additions. Alternatively, you can check this yourself, if you downloaded R0.085d3. Exactly what has the differences between these 2 Robbos have anything to do relative to establishing Houdini's originality. You do realize that even R0.085d3 was also released by Norman (Kranium), except that it was Public Domain while R0.085g3 was GPL'ed. The very Houdini 1.03 is proven to be.

No one believes so now. I abandoned this belief long ago when I checked the H1.5a disassembly with IDA.

Are you sure? Have you read all Robbodini threads and the "What should Robert Houdart do..." threads and still conclude that "no one" believes so now? Hardly the case you're stating...

Besides yourself, have you found ANYONE else including programmers, refuting the evidence from the 2 links provided?

Sure. http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... =&start=20, Julien MARCEL (author of Prédateur) writes:
"Regarding Houdini, and IF Houdini started from public domain code, Robert Houdart did nothing illegal."
This IF indicates clearly the absense of 100% evidence to the contrary.

Ahhh.....Cherry picking, are we!?

Yes JM did say "if"....
BUT remember, There are 2 types of Robbolitos: (1) the strictly Public Domain Robbolito, and (2) GPL Robbolito. Actually for all intensive & legal purposes, the GPL Robbolito is Public Domain + GPL.

Now if Robert Houdart used strictly Public Domain Robbolito as a base for Houdini, THEN he wouldn't encounter any legal problems. I believe THIS was part of what I stressed in my previous responses (or as rhetorical questions "why did RH skip PD Robbos and go after GPL Robbo?"). Exactly WHY, I believe, Julien Marcel (JM) used the word "IF Houdini started on Public Domain...", then he's clean as a whistle. The "if" AND "Public Domain" gives it away to anyone...

But once Robert Houdart touched the GPL Robbolito (PB + GPL), then by LAW he is obligated to conform to the GPL part of THAT Robbolito. In this case, Robbolito 0.085g3. He did not do that. He has repeatedly denied/lied outright that Houdini does NOT contain any GPL and/or Public Domain code(s). Subsequently, he has refused to comply with the GPL part of the PB+GPL Robbo as mandated by the GPL and/or law. This has also been stressed by, guess WHO?....Julien Marcel (JM). See here:

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=47073

Jose, this is my last attempt to make you understand. If you take a public domain source code and make additions to it, you are totally free to place those additions under GPL. The resulting program will have parts that are public-domain, and parts that are covered with GPL.

Here's an example:

HelloLito:

Code:

Code: Select all

/* HelloLito is domain public code. Long live the revolution! */

#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
    printf("hello, world\n");
}


HelloLito Extreme:



/* HelloLito is domain public code. Long live the revolution! */

/* HelloLito Extreme is released under GPL */

#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
    printf("hello, world\n");
    printf("I meant hellolito, world\n");
}

As I... and then the GPL FAQ told you, if you can distinguish in HelloLito Extreme which parts are GPLed (here, the second printf line) and which part are public domain, then you can make a private program with just the public domain parts and your own additions (but then it's simpler to start from HelloLito than from HelloLito Extreme, isn't it? Wink ). But if you start from HelloLito Extreme and keep the GPLed part, then your program will at least have to publish the parts of your program that were derived from the GPL parts of Hellolito Extreme.

For instance, let's imagine that someone decides to make a BouqueLito program:

Case 1: he starts from HelloLito:

Code:

Code: Select all

/* BouqueLito is not public domain code. Long live capitalism! */

#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
    printf("hello, greedy world\n");
    printf("I am the king of the florist!\n");
}

Fine, this is ok: HelloLito was public domain.

Case 2: he starts from HelloLito Extreme:

Code:

Code: Select all

/* BouqueLito is not public domain code. Long live capitalism! */

#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
    printf("hello, world\n");
    printf("I meant Bouquelito, greedy world\n");
    printf("I am the king of the florist!\n");
}

Then he'd have to at least publish the part he derived from the GPLed parts of the source program. (Here printf("I meant Bouquelito, greedy world\n"); )
Then he would have to publish the part of his codes

Is it selective memory at work here or did you conveniently leave-out this part of Julien's quote which would then demand an explanation as to WHY Robert Houdart by-passed the strictly PD Robbolito to use the PB + GPL version and NOT conform to the GPL there after ???
And again, to date, RH refuses to comply with the GPL Robbolito 0.085g3, and instead, prefers to lie about NOT using GPL or EVEN the Public Domain codes; emphasized by his very own words "Houdini is original". Remember that? Let's say, he used only the Public Domain codes/IPPOLITO/RobboLito and not the GPL, THAT would still make Robert Houdart a liar - because there [3200+ ELO ]codes in Houdini not written from scratch by him. So again, he would have still lied on this front. Still quite contrary to his claims that Houdini is original, eh? We keep going in circles about this.

As to why you defend this proven crook and a liar, albeit he added some ELO to IPPOLIT/Robbolito, is beyond me. Or anyone else, for that matter.

PS: I really feel sorry for this Jose Too much suffering. Who is this Jose, by the way?

[velmarin]

jose, not kranium, o Prima,
Prima o kranium,
Monta tanto, tanto monta, dos idiotas como idiotas dos.

[Prima]

jose, not kranium, o Prima,
Prima o kranium,
Monta tanto, tanto monta, dos idiotas como idiotas dos.

From Google Translate:

Code: Select all

Monta therefore both mounted, like idiots two idiots two.

Jose, no need to get angry and call names

Apparently, you misunderstand the "l-o-l" and the "wink" emoticons used was meant as a joke about not knowing who Jose is. But I'm glad you finally understood that Kranium & Sentinel had the right to GPL/protect their work put into Robbolito 0.085g3, and that efforts/ or work put into Public Domain can also be GPL'ed to produce PB + GPL product.