Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Disassembling = Unethical?

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 12:39:04 01/23/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 21, 2006 at 20:13:57, Uri Blass wrote:

>On January 21, 2006 at 20:09:43, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On January 21, 2006 at 17:53:53, David H. McClain wrote:
>>
>>>On January 21, 2006 at 12:45:04, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Please read here and join the debate:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/2/message.html?203547
>>>
>>>Rolf,
>>>
>>>It may be everything stated in that post but I am not naive enough to think
>>>Rybka has not been disassembled and reverse engineered by as many professional
>>>and many amatuer authors you can think of, Russian or otherwise.
>>>
>>>There is money at stake.  DHM
>>
>>I do not think that there is much money in chess.
>>
>>Everybody that I talk with him tell me that people who can earn money from chess
>>programs can earn a lot more from other things.
>>
>>I also doubt if disassembling rybka is the the best way to get a strong chess
>>program and it is possible that people who are so smart to be able to do it and
>>understand the assembler code of rybka may be also smart enough to generate
>>something better in less time.
>>
>>Uri
>
>I can add that in the past genius dominated for years by a big margin.
>
>people also could disassemble genius at that time and in that time it was
>possible to earn more money from chess programming.
>
>The fact that for years no program came close to genius suggest that
>disassembling and reverse engineering is not so easy.

I think that for a large system (e.g. 500K exe or bigger) it will be harder to
disassemble and recreate than to write from scratch.

Disassembled binary instructions will form a huge volume of information.

A few lines of C can expand into a large volume of assembly.

The optimizer will do all sorts of crazy things with the code .. writing jump
tables and lifting expressions, etc.  All the comments are also boiled out of
the code, along with all meaningful names.

To me, it would take the fun out of it to do it that way.  Why bother?



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.