Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:17:17 01/23/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2006 at 16:59:33, Joseph Tadeusz wrote: >On January 23, 2006 at 15:39:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > > >There are tools that translate executables directly into C code. DCC and Boomerang are the two that I am aware of. They spit out unintelligible goo. This link is pertinant to the thread: http://www.program-transformation.org/Transform/LegalityOfDecompilation >> >>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.