Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:53:10 02/17/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2006 at 06:27:34, Chrilly Donninger wrote: >On February 17, 2006 at 04:17:38, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On February 17, 2006 at 02:33:32, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>Is it possible to disassemble exe-file, which is zipped and/or copy protected >>>like Fruit 2.2.1? Where are disassemblers downloadable? >>> >>>thanks >>> >>>Jouni >> >>IDA Pro is easily the best. >Yes. IDA-Pro makes it a lot easier. One of the view pieces of Software I really >admire. > >> >>Just a general comment though: it is _extremely_ hard to figure out the >>innovations in a program. Basically, I would say that in practice it is >>impossible. Yes, you can locate the move generator, because you already know >>what that looks like and what it does. But understanding the evaluation terms, >>or adjustments to search depth, would require an ungodly effort, especially for >>a complex program. Let me put it like this: every aspiring computer chess >>programmer has been very strongly tempted to try his hand at disassembling. > >When I started computer chess in 1989 I did just a look at the GNU-Chess Code. >It came never in my mind to dissassemble another programm. I think today one >should study the Code of Fruit and Crafty. And should then make something else. >Doing Dissassembling as a beginner is completly pointless. The only chance to >get some usefull information from disassembling is when one knows what to look >for. One can only - with a reasonable amount of effort - disassembly a small >programm (e.g. a virus). > >Stefan Meyer-Kahlen once remarked to me "There are a lot of people around which >dissassemble Shredder". I felt a little bit stupid that I have thought before >that this is impossible and that I had no idea how to do it. So I bought IDA-Pro >and learned it. Just to prove, that I am a real programmer. > >From my experience it is relative straightforward to get a good picture of the >search. Not all the details, some flags/conditions why a given search is >done/not done are difficult to identify, but one gets the principial idea >behind. For Rybka I needed 2 days to get this overall picture. >Dissecting the whole programm is much too cumbersome. One gets crazy from this >extremly tedious work. > >I think, it does not pay off. For me it is just an intellectual challenge. E.g. >its nice to spot the Mate-Bug in Rybka. But it does not improve at all one ones >programm. >Even if one knows the search algorithm, one can not directly use it. The parts >have to fit together. There is a close relation between the evaluation, the >playing style and the search. As a special case the Hydra architecture which its >seperation of the FPGA- and PC-search puts additional restrictions. Additionally >some tricks which work on a single-processor are a desaster for a parallel >program. >I think doing engine matches and improving the weak spots of the own programm is >the only productive way. Disassembling is just to have some fun between these >boring engine-matches. > >Chrilly What would happen if you would use Rybka in your hardware, so that you get a multi-ping-pong effect just like in 'Advanced Chess'. Would that increase your Elo performance? And - could that be detected by Marshal vom Herigk? Let's make CC a bit more spicy.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.