Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 08:28:08 08/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2004 at 11:14:13, Lance Perkins wrote: >You don't need to disassemble the Crafty code. You already have the source code >in C. > >You only need to disassemble the ElChinito exe file. Paul has posted that for us >too. > >All that's left is to compare the two. Look at the Crafty C code and determine >if that will get translated to the assemlby file from ElChinito. Well, there are people like me, who do not like to view foreign code, simply for to avoid any copying of ideas even unwillingly from sourcoude of other authors. Therefor I have no crafty code or source at hands and do not intend to compare anything myself. There is a need for to have a clearing instance of trustworthy people. They should do the task of outing engines as clones - or (may be a better expression) as patchwork of foreign ideas. Therefor I wait for such a competent votum before I conclude anything myself concerning that case of possible code "recycling". Regards, Reinhard. >Read Bob's post, where he himself has agreed that the analysis is correct. > >I have done compiler backends before, so looking at this kind of stuff is easy >for me. And yup, Bob and Paul are correct. > >On August 23, 2004 at 11:06:07, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: > >>On August 23, 2004 at 10:51:37, Tony Werten wrote: >> >>>On August 23, 2004 at 10:48:44, Tony Werten wrote: >>> >>>>On August 23, 2004 at 10:06:27, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On August 23, 2004 at 09:34:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>So, what you here basically miss is this: in an expert environment something has >>>>>>been proven and we have one or two who can't believe it, also because they don't >>>>>>understand what Paul had discovered. >>>>> >>>>>But that's exactly the "problem", Rolf. For example you don't understand the >>>>>potential proof either, but it would not be reasonable if someone were >>>>>disappointed about it IMHO, which was my point. You are right that there are >>>>>others who can, but those who can't, can't judge, other than choosing to believe >>>>>in conclusions others reached. The only thing an ordinary user can do is look if >>>>>the statements themselves seem to make sense and sound logical, but you can't >>>>>evaluate the assembler statements e.g., and if tomorrow someone else posted >>>>>another explanation which is coherent, you wouldn't know who is right. So a >>>>>baseless accuse and a perfect proof will look alike to you too - q.e.d. >>>> >>>>I guess that's why they have expert witnesses in court. They find somebody who >>>>does know and believe him. >>>> >>>>Of several experts claim something, then you can't defend yourself anymore with >>>>"I don't believe it because I don't know anything about it", you'll have to come >>>>up with oposite prove. >>>> >>>>Being somewhat experienced with programming, I can tell you: "Code was copied." >>> >>>Oops, just found the 1 exception: "... If the 2 programs compared were Crafty en >>>Chinito" >> >>I think that's the point. >> >>In order to really confirm Paul's analysis (which seems quite convincing so >>far), you would have to disassemble Crafty and Chinito yourself. You'd have to >>identify the code sections which correspond to each other. Finally, you'd have >>to verify that the bugs mentioned by Paul are really present in both sections. >> >>I am afraid that this may be a quite tedious task. Who is willing to do this ? >> >>Just believing Paul may be a bit too simple in view of the severity of his >>conclusions. >> >>Uli >> >>> >>>Tony >>> >>>> >>>>Tony
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.