POLL: Whether Houdini Is An Original Work?

[Sean Evans]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality

As the computer chess community seems to be hung-up on the definition of clone as is lacks clarity, I will start another poll.

The crux of the issue is: "Whether Houdini Is An Original Work That Is Eligible To Compete in the 2010 WCCC?"

Cordially,

Sean Evans

[slobo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality

As the computer chess community seems to be hung-up on the definition of clone as is lacks clarity, I will start another poll.

The crux of the issue is: "Whether Houdini Is An Original Work That Is Eligible To Compete in the 2010 WCCC?"

Cordially,

Sean Evans

Yes, that would be the correct question.

[Roger Brown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality

As the computer chess community seems to be hung-up on the definition of clone as is lacks clarity, I will start another poll.

The crux of the issue is: "Whether Houdini Is An Original Work That Is Eligible To Compete in the 2010 WCCC?"

Cordially,

Sean Evans

Hello Sean,

I freely admit to being not the brightest person in the room but here are the issues which I see:

(a) The fact of Houdini's originality can only be answered by reference to the source code which to my knowledge the author has not yet released.

(b) The author has not made any statements about desperately wishing to enter any competition or rating list. Is the question therefore even relevant? I mean, it might be true of any engine.

(c) Is originality a requirement for entry? Should there be a derivative engine, could I as the original author, simply give my blessings to the other derivative entry and not enter my original engine that year?

(d) The computer chess community is hung upon a need to clarify what is what. Considerable gray areas exist as to the extent of copying requiring. I suspect that derivative is not going to provide the requisite clarity but let us see...

(e) When all is said and done, I suspect that this poll will provide yet more smoke than fire. Again, let us see....

Later.

[Sean Evans]

Hello Sean,

Hello

I freely admit to being not the brightest person in the room but here are the issues which I see:

Oh well, we can't all be the Pope

(a) The fact of Houdini's originality can only be answered by reference to the source code which to my knowledge the author has not yet released.

We can draw conclusions by the play of the program, including strength. Remember, Houdini just showed up, no previous versions. Any computer chess engine that is successful, has had to have several weaker versions first.

(b) The author has not made any statements about desperately wishing to enter any competition or rating list. Is the question therefore even relevant? I mean, it might be true of any engine.

The question is: Can Houdini be entered into the WCCC? i.e. is it eligible under the WCCC rules of original program?

(c) Is originality a requirement for entry? Should there be a derivative engine, could I as the original author, simply give my blessings to the other derivative entry and not enter my original engine that year?

Must be an original program, no idea what your second sentence is stating.

(d) The computer chess community is hung upon a need to clarify what is what. Considerable gray areas exist as to the extent of copying requiring. I suspect that derivative is not going to provide the requisite clarity but let us see...

Derivative is not an original program: for example Rybka. Should R4 be allowed to play in the WCCC, IMHO...NO!

(e) When all is said and done, I suspect that this poll will provide yet more smoke than fire. Again, let us see....

Unlikely.

Later.

Cordially,

Sean

[Roger Brown]

(a) The fact of Houdini's originality can only be answered by reference to the source code which to my knowledge the author has not yet released.

We can draw conclusions by the play of the program, including strength. Remember, Houdini just showed up, no previous versions. Any computer chess engine that is successful, has had to have several weaker versions first.

Hello Sean,

This is precisely the point that I am wondering about. Yes the program is strong but it is as though some ceiling has been set on ingenuity somewhere. I agree that the usual pattern of chess engine development is as you have outlined above but Fruit is a counterpoint. The first release of that was strong, very strong.

Incidentally, I am not defending or attacking any particular perspective or indeed, any engine. I am just pointing out that because of the current messy state of affairs any engine - whether it had been worked on for years in secret then released or not - that displays strength above what one would consider normal (what is that anyway?) is going to be regarded with suspicion. How fair is that?

Must be an original program, no idea what your second sentence is stating.

Define originality Sean. This should be interesting....

(e) When all is said and done, I suspect that this poll will provide yet more smoke than fire. Again, let us see....

Unlikely.

Let me rephrase. I suspect the issues which you raise here will not resolve the very relevant and thorny matter of what is an original program as against derivative as against clone.

To be mischievous, you do know that Rybka started out a very weak engine, don't you? So its pattern of development would correspond with your stated model of a relatively weak initial release followed by increasingly stronger iterations. Which would then tend to suggest that it meets your criterion for patient development. The jury is deliberating on the other things taken from other engines although it appears to be heading in a particular direction I admit.

Later.

[Dr. Ivannik]

Gentlemen

Sadly as I go over these posts I notice a lack of useful information/input regarding chess itself. The 3rd round games of the China-Russia match have been posted by Chessbase and The Week in Chess just to name a few. As I analyze the V. Potkin-Zhou Jianchao game, after the inattentive 19...Kh7?! I see beauty in Potkin's sham sacrifice 20.Bb5 resulting in the control of the center, followed by control of the 7th rank and an attack on the king side. This is a game I would hope everyone will look at to improve one's skill in chess. Analyze with Houdini-Rybka-Stockfish-Ippolit family-Fritz-Shredder or any engine you like. Why do you patzers bicker over this clone issue. These engines have been given to man by the Chess Gods to improve your game. The future will see many chess engines appear on line to download that will be super strong by unknown sources. Use them and learn from them is my advice.

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik

[Sean Evans]

Gentlemen, Why do you patzers bicker over this clone issue.

My dear Dr. Dipsomaniac,

If you don't know why, then I suggest you follow this proverb: "It Is Just As Important To Listen As It Is To Speak".

Cordially,

Sean Evans

[kingliveson]

I voted no!

Edit: No meaning not an original work, but should be allowed to compete nevertheless so long it's the only Ippolit derivative in the competition.

[slobo]

I voted no!

Edit: No meaning not an original work, but should be allowed to compete nevertheless so long it's the only Ippolit derivative in the competition.

You´re right KL. Let me repeat: we´re not against Houdini, that nice and innocent chess engine, probably the most successful Robbo descendant. We are against its author lies.

[Dr. Ivannik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originality

As the computer chess community seems to be hung-up on the definition of clone as is lacks clarity, I will start another poll.

The crux of the issue is: "Whether Houdini Is An Original Work That Is Eligible To Compete in the 2010 WCCC?"

Cordially,

Sean Evans

Gentlemen


"Whether Houdini Is An Original Work That Is Eligible To Compete in the 2010 WCCC?" Is Irrelevant many players and comrades
would prefer to see the best engines play to determine a champion. The 2010 WCCC can gain status and integrity by allowing
all engines, and losing this clone issue so we can determine a engine champ. It's seems simple. You can't have a championship without the champ!!

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik