Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:43:15 08/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. > > Something is definitely bad here. I looked at the Crafty code as cited by Paul, and found old code that was no longer needed/used/executed, but apparently I never removed it, or I removed it on the wrong machine leaving the "master source" with some code that does nothing. It is _definitely_ there although I have now cleaned up the current version. I also looked at the disassembled stuff and it is as Paul states. The only "out" here would be if Paul wanted to generate problems and simply used two copies of Crafty vs one of Crafty and one of El Chinito. I don't believe that happened, because he has sent me several emails showing additional problems he has found, and he knows that _someone_ will validate his tests and that he'd look foolish if it is proven that he didn't really use the el chinito executable. For that reason, I believe he is completely honest and that there is a problem here. It isn't the first problem like this I've seen. It won't be the last. There are multiple clones on ICC, we have seen them elsewhere in the past such as Le Petite, Voyager, bionic, etc. 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.