Author: Joseph Tadeusz
Date: 14:27:39 01/23/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2006 at 17:17:17, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. I don't agree. I think the windows version of DEC creates high quality C code. All that remains are the following steps: - identify important functions - identify important variables A team of motivated people could easily reverse engineer a chess engine. > >This link is pertinant to the thread: >http://www.program-transformation.org/Transform/LegalityOfDecompilation I agree that feelings would get hurt. > >>> >>>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.