Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 21:31:53 08/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2004 at 17:17:25, Paul H wrote: >The argument here is not based on the output of the engine or the strenght of >the engine or the kind of moves that it generates. If ElChinito is only Elo >1000, it still does change the fact that the binary ElChinito.exe is made from >Crafty source. If it is Elo 1000 using crafty code, it just means that there are >changes that made it so. > >I just did a thorough code analysis. It reveals facts that even Bob only >realizes now. Even without the source code, Bob agrees that those portions of >code is from Crafty. Again, that is without the source code. Have you seen >anyone do this kind of technical analysis here before? And after all that, you >compare it to a primitive witch hunt? > >I am about to also post the disassembly of the function NextMove(). These are >all technical facts. > >Why don't you review all the code analysis and tell us that it is wrong. I am also part of the handful of people in CCC who can't understand code analysis or anything with code. Could you please explain to these few what you did in your analysis? You say that you can get details of a program's code if you have only the exe? - A question in that context would also be, if you could clarify if LIST (Graz) was a Crafty clone or at least if it used parts of Bob's code? Would your answer be also relevant if say some critics still claimed that they had data that LIST in fact were a clone or used parts of its code? - Thank you in advance.
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.