I'm in doubt if RobboLito is a clone

[M ANSARI]

...
One question though:
Can it be compiled for the Windows operation system

It shouldn't be to difficult for someone who does such ports sometimes. I'm not the one who can do it cause I'm simply missing a compiler for Windows.

However, Marco's comments about the mistakes in the Italian are interesting. What makes me wonder is that there aren't any comments in the source code. The speed how fast one forgets what he has programmed himself without comments is amazing. OTOH there are these tablebases.

vp

As a programmer I can say that is _impossible_ to work an a source like the one posted.

What I think is that there is one properly edited and commented source that this guy uses to develop and then when he has to post to public takes this 'good' source, strips comments, unify in one single big file, shuffles the formatting and gives it to the C preprocessor the result of this obfuscation process is what we see published on the site.

I could easily to the same with Stockfish and I would bet anyone of you to reconize the original from the obfuscated one although the functionality remains 100% the same up to the last bit.

I think he is doing like this to give the reader a bit of fun trying to understand what's in it.

I find neither version hard at all to understand. I aso do not think they were decompiled since variable names make sense and are easy to understand. I donlt even need to look at an Italian dictionary since you can tell from what calls what the purpose of things. My guess is the authors merely looked at the assembly code from other programs and combined the best ideas of each in a new program. Is stealing ideas illegal or wrong? Well, I personally think stealing an idea without credit is wrong. But is it a copyright or patent violation? I assume Vas has not patented the ideas in Rybka, so probably not that. In any case, the computer chess market is so small that any profits a programmer makes writing this code would be totally gobbled up by lawyers if they even tried to sue.

If these programs are stronger than Rybka, I am sure with an hour of source code viewing, Vas could understand any beneficial changes. With all his work on Rybka 4, I have no doubts that he will be well ahead of these programs very soon (and probably already is).

Mark

I agree, it is amazing that someone would go to such extremes to try to decompile a program. It would seem that someone who would put that much effort might better use his abilities in doing his own stuff. But then again Rybka is the strongest engine on earth and chess happens to interest "nerdy" types who would be proficient in such things and might see it as an interesting challenge. I really have no doubt that Vas already something much stronger as he probably understands his code better than anyone. Also he has much more experience in what works and what doesn't work. What I worry about is that in the next release there will be such an invasive protection scheme that it would decrease the overall strength of the engine. I think that happened to some extent with Rybka 3 but doesn't seem to have worked ... but then again much more sophisticated programs get hacked every day and I am not sure that would be the way to go. Maybe he can change his business model to having a sort of way where someone who buys an original engine is entitled to many updates per year, this way you are always ahead of the curve. Not sure how many would subscribe to something like that though as the computer chess freaks are very few in number.

[mjlef]

...
One question though:
Can it be compiled for the Windows operation system

It shouldn't be to difficult for someone who does such ports sometimes. I'm not the one who can do it cause I'm simply missing a compiler for Windows.

However, Marco's comments about the mistakes in the Italian are interesting. What makes me wonder is that there aren't any comments in the source code. The speed how fast one forgets what he has programmed himself without comments is amazing. OTOH there are these tablebases.

vp

As a programmer I can say that is _impossible_ to work an a source like the one posted.

What I think is that there is one properly edited and commented source that this guy uses to develop and then when he has to post to public takes this 'good' source, strips comments, unify in one single big file, shuffles the formatting and gives it to the C preprocessor the result of this obfuscation process is what we see published on the site.

I could easily to the same with Stockfish and I would bet anyone of you to reconize the original from the obfuscated one although the functionality remains 100% the same up to the last bit.

I think he is doing like this to give the reader a bit of fun trying to understand what's in it.

I find neither version hard at all to understand. I aso do not think they were decompiled since variable names make sense and are easy to understand. I donlt even need to look at an Italian dictionary since you can tell from what calls what the purpose of things. My guess is the authors merely looked at the assembly code from other programs and combined the best ideas of each in a new program. Is stealing ideas illegal or wrong? Well, I personally think stealing an idea without credit is wrong. But is it a copyright or patent violation? I assume Vas has not patented the ideas in Rybka, so probably not that. In any case, the computer chess market is so small that any profits a programmer makes writing this code would be totally gobbled up by lawyers if they even tried to sue.

If these programs are stronger than Rybka, I am sure with an hour of source code viewing, Vas could understand any beneficial changes. With all his work on Rybka 4, I have no doubts that he will be well ahead of these programs very soon (and probably already is).

Mark

I agree, it is amazing that someone would go to such extremes to try to decompile a program. It would seem that someone who would put that much effort might better use his abilities in doing his own stuff. But then again Rybka is the strongest engine on earth and chess happens to interest "nerdy" types who would be proficient in such things and might see it as an interesting challenge. I really have no doubt that Vas already something much stronger as he probably understands his code better than anyone. Also he has much more experience in what works and what doesn't work. What I worry about is that in the next release there will be such an invasive protection scheme that it would decrease the overall strength of the engine. I think that happened to some extent with Rybka 3 but doesn't seem to have worked ... but then again much more sophisticated programs get hacked every day and I am not sure that would be the way to go. Maybe he can change his business model to having a sort of way where someone who buys an original engine is entitled to many updates per year, this way you are always ahead of the curve. Not sure how many would subscribe to something like that though as the computer chess freaks are very few in number.

A dream of mine is to one day write a book about computer chess. After many interviews with the authors and reviewing the code (this would be long in the future, when revealing secrest would not matter), I would explain the development, the kind of intellectual warfare between the programmers. The eureka! moments as they discovered new laws of nature, how to search more effectively, how to correct weaknesses. I think if this was well written, it would be almost like an intellectual "thriller". I think for many years, programs mostly increased in strength as the processors got faster. But now we see large real increases based on clever ideas. What lines to search and how deeply. What Vas an Bob and others have done is make this into a real science. And I think a mass market would be interested in this history and these ideas.

For now, I just get to see a little of the genius behind these programs. But I must like is since I smile a lot when I see "where they are going" with an idea.

Mark

[George Tsavdaris]

What Vas an Bob and others have done is make this into a real science.

I don't quite agree. Bob yes real science, but not Vas. What Vas makes is not real science but only semi-science.
Because he gives us the amazing executable of Rybka that is a great scientific achievement but he doesn't give us the code of it. And one of the basics of science is to give knowledge to everyone. To spread knowledge.

[michiguel]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

[slobo]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

Yes, because it seems you don´t make difference between "disseminating knowledge" and "take personal advantage of colective knowledge offered for free by others".

[michiguel]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

Yes, because it seems you don´t make difference between "disseminating knowledge" and "take personal advantage of colective knowledge offered for free by others".

No, I don't because that is purpose of disseminating knowledge. You disseminate it so others will take advantage of it. That is the whole idea. You do not disseminate an idea so someone learn about it just for fun.

Miguel

[slobo]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

Yes, because it seems you don´t make difference between "disseminating knowledge" and "take personal advantage of colective knowledge offered for free by others".

No, I don't because that is purpose of disseminating knowledge. You disseminate it so others will take advantage of it. That is the whole idea. You do not disseminate an idea so someone learn about it just for fun.

Miguel

You don´t understand who were disseminating knowledge. So, let´s go back a little: it were Crafy and Fruit´s authors. The Rybka´s author did not. He only was taking advantage of it.

Don´t you think we need more balance in this case?

[slobo]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

Yes, because it seems you don´t make difference between "disseminating knowledge" and "take personal advantage of colective knowledge offered for free by others".

No, I don't because that is purpose of disseminating knowledge. You disseminate it so others will take advantage of it. That is the whole idea. You do not disseminate an idea so someone learn about it just for fun.

Miguel

You don´t understand who were disseminating knowledge. So, let´s go back a little: it were Crafy and Fruit´s authors. The Rybka´s author did not. He only was taking advantage of it.

Don´t you think we need more balance in this case?

Or, perhaps you think that Bob and Fabien had to disseminate knowledge and Vas only to take advantage of it, without disseminating it anymore?

[michiguel]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

Yes, because it seems you don´t make difference between "disseminating knowledge" and "take personal advantage of colective knowledge offered for free by others".

No, I don't because that is purpose of disseminating knowledge. You disseminate it so others will take advantage of it. That is the whole idea. You do not disseminate an idea so someone learn about it just for fun.

Miguel

You don´t understand who were disseminating knowledge.

I do

So, let´s go back a little: it were Crafy and Fruit´s authors.

Yes

The Rybka´s author did not. He only was taking advantage of it.

May be

Don´t you think we need more balance in this case?

No.

Miguel

[michiguel]

Vas is angry because someone decompiled Rybka3 and took all his brilliant ideas.

It was OK for Vas to take other ideas when he was the one who "took" them.

Take and steal are not synonyms

Miguel

When Fruit´s and Crafty´s ideas had been turned public (open source), the idea of both author had been exchange ideas and have return in any form.

Vas picked them up without any return.

Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

Do you think Fabien and Bob would help a guy who´s been picking their ideas, and planing to get commercial without giving nothing in return?

Yes, that is the idea of disseminating knowledge, that someone else uses it. Happens everyday with science feeding technology and individual enterprises.

Do I really need to explain these basic concepts?

Miguel

Yes, because it seems you don´t make difference between "disseminating knowledge" and "take personal advantage of colective knowledge offered for free by others".

No, I don't because that is purpose of disseminating knowledge. You disseminate it so others will take advantage of it. That is the whole idea. You do not disseminate an idea so someone learn about it just for fun.

Miguel

You don´t understand who were disseminating knowledge. So, let´s go back a little: it were Crafy and Fruit´s authors. The Rybka´s author did not. He only was taking advantage of it.

Don´t you think we need more balance in this case?

Or, perhaps you think that Bob and Fabien had to disseminate knowledge and Vas only to take advantage of it, without disseminating it anymore?

They did not have to. They chose to do it, and Vas, as many others, may have chosen to honor their wish, learning from them.

I do not know about Fabien, but Bob is a Scholar, so part of his legacy is disseminating knowledge. Scholars create and disseminate knowledge, and society takes advantage of it. I am sure that along his career, Bob has used public resources, some State, and some Federal, directly or indirectly. Who paid for those resources? taxpayers like Vas, or taxpayers like Nakamura, who I am sure must be enjoying Rybka, and Crafty. An all of them, including every single commercial programmer, is enjoying the works of Shannon and Knuth.

Miguel