Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 08:31:22 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. Who knows whether Paul hadn't made a mistake when preparing his post ? I think in order to confirm his analysis, the disassembling part has to be redone independently too. Having said this, I don't want to indicate that Paul had really made a mistake. He really seems to know what he is doing. > >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. > >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. So, have you really disassembled yourself ElChinito ? Uli > >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.