Author: Tony Werten
Date: 12:38:25 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. Yes. Unfortunately I have just taken a look at the disassembled code of Crafty and Chinito and can confirm the 99999 bug ( evaluate mate) Both the silly test as well as the actual function code have been copied. Tony > >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.