Bob Hyatt says that....

[fern]

...the argument that points how many programs or even all use the same algorythms is irrelevant as much they can be writen in so many different ways. So, he add, the reasonning that programs share lot of stuff, as Fabian said, would be not valid.
Ok. Then, if it is so and surely must be because, after all, Bob Hyatt and none other said that, if really the line of code and how was writen is the core of the issue, then let the attackers of Rybka originality show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.
Of course I wonder how they will do such a thing as much I presume the Rybka lines of code are not easily accesible.

Wondering regards
fern

[Rolf]

...the argument that points how many programs or even all use the same algorythms is irrelevant as much they can be writen in so many different ways. So, he add, the reasonning that programs share lot of stuff, as Fabian said, would be not valid.
Ok. Then, if it is so and surely must be because, after all, Bob Hyatt and none other said that, if really the line of code and how was writen is the core of the issue, then let the attackers of Rybka originality show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.
Of course I wonder how they will do such a thing as much I presume the Rybka lines of code are not easily accesible.

Wondering regards
fern

shmokie, the whole thing will happen on the players meeting in Beijing shortly before the big tournament. See you there.

[Alexander Schmidt]

show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/ct_chess/Fr ... rt_go.html

[bob]

...the argument that points how many programs or even all use the same algorythms is irrelevant as much they can be writen in so many different ways. So, he add, the reasonning that programs share lot of stuff, as Fabian said, would be not valid.
Ok. Then, if it is so and surely must be because, after all, Bob Hyatt and none other said that, if really the line of code and how was writen is the core of the issue, then let the attackers of Rybka originality show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.
Of course I wonder how they will do such a thing as much I presume the Rybka lines of code are not easily accesible.

Wondering regards
fern

What is being done is to take the executable, and run in thru a disassembler which produces the assembly language code the compiler produced when the source was compiled. An experienced programmer can then take that assembly language code and reconstruct the C source code it came from.

inc i => i++; in C for example.

It takes time because the optimizer in the compiler re-orders instructions to make them run as efficiently as possible, so the human reverse-engineer has to undo all of that...

[chrisw]

show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/ct_chess/Fr ... rt_go.html

This is some kind of joke?!

The 'code' contains 200 lines, many of which are blank, ignoring those, there are:

33 lines same
81 lines different

that's a 28% correspondence. Very funny joke.

You have no source of Rybka, so the variable names are guesswork, btw.

Given that the code chucks are doing the same thing, I find 81 different lines to 33 same completely reasonable for programs written by two different people.

[Zach Wegner]

Can we PLEASE stop arguing over this?

[chrisw]

...the argument that points how many programs or even all use the same algorythms is irrelevant as much they can be writen in so many different ways. So, he add, the reasonning that programs share lot of stuff, as Fabian said, would be not valid.
Ok. Then, if it is so and surely must be because, after all, Bob Hyatt and none other said that, if really the line of code and how was writen is the core of the issue, then let the attackers of Rybka originality show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.
Of course I wonder how they will do such a thing as much I presume the Rybka lines of code are not easily accesible.

Wondering regards
fern

What is being done is to take the executable, and run in thru a disassembler which produces the assembly language code the compiler produced when the source was compiled. An experienced programmer can then take that assembly language code and reconstruct the C source code it came from.

inc i => i++; in C for example.

It takes time because the optimizer in the compiler re-orders instructions to make them run as efficiently as possible, so the human reverse-engineer has to undo all of that...

Perhaps you should also point out that when the executable code is compiled from the source in the first place, enormous amounts of information are thrown away, so to re-generate the source from an executable requires creativity and massive amounts of creative guesswork from the reverse engineer. Better to call him reverse creative artist actually.

Your final alleged C source, rehashed from the executable is, shall we say, open to question.

Who tells you the label names, for example? Oh whoops, Reverse creative artist calls them himself, whatever he wants to call them, and so on.

[kranium]

show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/ct_chess/Fr ... rt_go.html

This is some kind of joke?!

The 'code' contains 200 lines, many of which are blank, ignoring those, there are:

33 lines same
81 lines different

that's a 28% correspondence. Very funny joke.

You have no source of Rybka, so the variable names are guesswork, btw.

Given that the code chucks are doing the same thing, I find 81 different lines to 33 same completely reasonable for programs written by two different people.

yes, i haven't counted, but ok 33 are exact ...
isn't that concerning? how can that happen.

not that it means a lot, but of course, as a programmer Chris you're aware that there are many more than are very close (or as Uri put it: equivalent)

Searching = true;
is the same as
Searching = 1;
and
Delay = false;
is the same as
Dealy = 0;

etc.

It just seems like a awful lot to me,.. and we're only talking about 1 (relatively small) function.

as far as the missing symbol info, yes reproducing or reconstructing it is not an exact science. but there are many things to help, you can purchase disassembly libraries that go a great distance to aid accuracy.
And if the disassembler himself is knowledgeable and experienced, this also aids a great deal. I don't know Rick Fadden, I have simply read his many posts, and it was clear to me the was experiences, honest, unbiased, etc. he even mentioned that 'several of us' fpound the results...i.e. a group effort.

so agreed, no problem, we do need to press it....perhaps there will be more info and when the rest of the executable become disassembled.

i realize that many, if not most people, believe we have lost the argument in the court of public opinion, because we haven't provided enough code.

i can accept that...it's getting tiring foe all i'm sure.
let's stop discussing it, as Zach has requested, and simply agree to disagree.

[Mike S.]

the whole thing will happen on the players meeting in Beijing shortly before the big tournament.

Yes, I guess that's the time and location when some people want to crucify Vas and then celebrate their satanic mass. Vas should withdraw from the world championship! Chessmaster (the best selling chess software) and since many years, Fritz (the second best selling chess software) did not require to participate. Rybka doesn't either. After the so called world champion 2008 has been crowned, Rybka will defeat it 60:40 at least, anytime anywhere.

Rolf, you remember Graz 2003. Meanwhile, F.Reul has sold his program to Nintendo, for the Wii console, the currently best selling video console. I guess from all chess programmers, he is currently the one who creates the biggest revenue. That is his silent revenge for the injustice of Graz.

[tiger]

...the argument that points how many programs or even all use the same algorythms is irrelevant as much they can be writen in so many different ways. So, he add, the reasonning that programs share lot of stuff, as Fabian said, would be not valid.
Ok. Then, if it is so and surely must be because, after all, Bob Hyatt and none other said that, if really the line of code and how was writen is the core of the issue, then let the attackers of Rybka originality show us specific lines of code that are equal to those from fruit.
Of course I wonder how they will do such a thing as much I presume the Rybka lines of code are not easily accesible.

Wondering regards
fern

What is being done is to take the executable, and run in thru a disassembler which produces the assembly language code the compiler produced when the source was compiled. An experienced programmer can then take that assembly language code and reconstruct the C source code it came from.

inc i => i++; in C for example.

It takes time because the optimizer in the compiler re-orders instructions to make them run as efficiently as possible, so the human reverse-engineer has to undo all of that...

Perhaps you should also point out that when the executable code is compiled from the source in the first place, enormous amounts of information are thrown away, so to re-generate the source from an executable requires creativity and massive amounts of creative guesswork from the reverse engineer. Better to call him reverse creative artist actually.

Your final alleged C source, rehashed from the executable is, shall we say, open to question.

Who tells you the label names, for example? Oh whoops, Reverse creative artist calls them himself, whatever he wants to call them, and so on.

So what's your point? That reverse-engineering cannot be used to prove any breach of copyright because too much depends on the "artist"?



// Christophe