Bob Hyatt says 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.

Please look again. "33 lines the same". One of us can't count. I stopped at 50. If two lines of C are on the same line they are equivalent.

At least don't try to distort what is being presented. That code is absoilutely _not_ independently written.

50? my goodness me, that's a lot out of 114. Not even half. And many of the equivalances rely on creative naming of variables and functions to, guess what, be the same!

Less than than half of your only disassembled code block so far? Very funny joke, Bob. Hahahaha

This is the famous identical corresponding code blocks is it? The famous 4000 lines of Christophe?

That code could perfectly well be independently written.

Are you going to try and get Vas's source code revealed at icga by this method? Hmmm?

[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.

Perhaps for you. Not for me. I can't reconstruct variable names. But I can figure out what code is doing and then deduce reasonable names, given enough interest to do so.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Bob.

Only there won't be deduced "reasonable names", there will be deduced deliberately, names that cirrespond to names in the target program, to make it seem there are more correspondences than there really might be.

That's the creativity.

Do you deny the use of identical names as target program wherever possible will be used? No, of course you don't. Because already that is what has happened in the disassemblys we've been presented with.

Creative creation of variable and function names, deliberately to match the target.

Let's be quite honest to all the lays trying to follow this, shall we?

I will say it again. If the instructions match exactly, and I then copy the names from one program and use them in the other on the same instructions, and everything matches and works properly, and suddenly the two programs appear to be identical, is that "creating" evidence or "discovering" evidence.

28% appears "identical"?

28% lines up and matches "exactly"?

Variable and function names deliberately chosen to match?

Hahahahahaha

Maybe in Creative Art 101.

I thought this was computer science.

[GenoM]

Chris, I guess I know what you are doing right now. You talked to Vas, asking about all this stuff here. He is a really nice guy and you believed him that he didn't do anything wrong.

I believed him too when I asked right after the Rybka 1.0 release.

I hope you will not get disapointed to much one day. I mean that honestly.

Yes, his POV is mainly based on personal feelings -- it seems that for him is most important to contradict with all Bob Hyatt is saying on the matter. And to challenge EVERY point Bob Hyatt made.

He (ChrisW) is ready to deny that 2+2=4 written by two different people is the same because it's wriiten with different handwritings.

[pedrox]

Obviously what went wrong was the pre-decision. To ask for source they need strong evidence already. Otherwise anybody can, in Stasi manner, wreck any competitors tournament for them.

That's what happened, and that explains my sometimes (too?) harsh wording against the ICGA. Of course, I cannot be 100% sure that List didn't contain any Crafty code, but from what was possible to read in public, I am almost sure that there was no strong evidence.

The extra funny thing about that matter is, that actually there WAS a clone participating in that tournament, as was found out later: (El) Chinito, a Crafty clone. The glorious ICGA disqualified List but not Chinito.

http://computer-chess.org/doku.php?id=c ... ngine_list

(you will notice that List or Loop is NOT in that list)

There is a page with evidence to show that El Chinito is a clone of Crafty?

Thank you.

Pedro

[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.

Please look again. "33 lines the same". One of us can't count. I stopped at 50. If two lines of C are on the same line they are equivalent.

At least don't try to distort what is being presented. That code is absoilutely _not_ independently written.

50? my goodness me, that's a lot out of 114. Not even half. And many of the equivalances rely on creative naming of variables and functions to, guess what, be the same!

Less than than half of your only disassembled code block so far? Very funny joke, Bob. Hahahaha

This is the famous identical corresponding code blocks is it? The famous 4000 lines of Christophe?

That code could perfectly well be independently written.

Are you going to try and get Vas's source code revealed at icga by this method? Hmmm?

chris-
there's no proof about 'creative' naming either...it just as plausible that it was accurately done.

[chrisw]

Chris, I guess I know what you are doing right now. You talked to Vas, asking about all this stuff here. He is a really nice guy and you believed him that he didn't do anything wrong.

I believed him too when I asked right after the Rybka 1.0 release.

I hope you will not get disapointed to much one day. I mean that honestly.

Yes, his POV is mainly based on personal feelings -- it seems that for him is most important to contradict with all Bob Hyatt is saying on the matter. And to challenge EVERY point Bob Hyatt made.

He (ChrisW) is ready to deny that 2+2=4 written by two different people is the same because it's wriiten with different handwritings.

No, no!! I say 33 out of 114 is 28% and is different hand

[GenoM]

Chris, I guess I know what you are doing right now. You talked to Vas, asking about all this stuff here. He is a really nice guy and you believed him that he didn't do anything wrong.

I believed him too when I asked right after the Rybka 1.0 release.

I hope you will not get disapointed to much one day. I mean that honestly.

Yes, his POV is mainly based on personal feelings -- it seems that for him is most important to contradict with all Bob Hyatt is saying on the matter. And to challenge EVERY point Bob Hyatt made.

He (ChrisW) is ready to deny that 2+2=4 written by two different people is the same because it's wriiten with different handwritings.

No, no!! I say 33 out of 114 is 28% and is different hand

Writing 2+2=4 is is not wrong, even if it was cribbed in class room

[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.

Please look again. "33 lines the same". One of us can't count. I stopped at 50. If two lines of C are on the same line they are equivalent.

At least don't try to distort what is being presented. That code is absoilutely _not_ independently written.

50? my goodness me, that's a lot out of 114. Not even half. And many of the equivalances rely on creative naming of variables and functions to, guess what, be the same!

Less than than half of your only disassembled code block so far? Very funny joke, Bob. Hahahaha

This is the famous identical corresponding code blocks is it? The famous 4000 lines of Christophe?

That code could perfectly well be independently written.

Are you going to try and get Vas's source code revealed at icga by this method? Hmmm?

chris-
there's no proof about 'creative' naming either...it just as plausible that it was accurately done.

Doesn't look like you understand the creative disassembly process. The naming of functions and variables (symbols), in the absence of the symbol table (thrown away at complie time and not part of the executable) is entirely the creative work of the engineer (creative artist) doing the disassembly.

The artist invents the symbol names. Unsurprisingly, since he is out to prove correspondence with a target program, he invents the symbol names to match the target.

Hence, perfectly possible he recreates some source which only resembles the target source (especially in case of a mere 28% match) in the fantasies of the reverse engineer artist.

Just because it is computer "science", don't imagine it is science.

[chrisw]

Chris, I guess I know what you are doing right now. You talked to Vas, asking about all this stuff here. He is a really nice guy and you believed him that he didn't do anything wrong.

I believed him too when I asked right after the Rybka 1.0 release.

I hope you will not get disapointed to much one day. I mean that honestly.

Yes, his POV is mainly based on personal feelings -- it seems that for him is most important to contradict with all Bob Hyatt is saying on the matter. And to challenge EVERY point Bob Hyatt made.

He (ChrisW) is ready to deny that 2+2=4 written by two different people is the same because it's wriiten with different handwritings.

No, no!! I say 33 out of 114 is 28% and is different hand

Writing 2+2=4 is is not wrong, even if it was cribbed in class room

More often 2+2 makes 5 - it's what to look for

as in 100% identical = 28% identical

4000 corresponding identical code lines = metaphorical 4000 code lines

they will provide more examples, it's only a matter of time .....

[Uri Blass]

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.

Please look again. "33 lines the same". One of us can't count. I stopped at 50. If two lines of C are on the same line they are equivalent.

At least don't try to distort what is being presented. That code is absoilutely _not_ independently written.

50? my goodness me, that's a lot out of 114. Not even half. And many of the equivalances rely on creative naming of variables and functions to, guess what, be the same!

Less than than half of your only disassembled code block so far? Very funny joke, Bob. Hahahaha

This is the famous identical corresponding code blocks is it? The famous 4000 lines of Christophe?

That code could perfectly well be independently written.

Are you going to try and get Vas's source code revealed at icga by this method? Hmmm?

No way to know names of variables or functions so here is analysis by me
when I ignore empty lines of rybka and I compare only lines of rybka(not that I do not think that it proves copying and I may have few mistakes because I did not check for errors).

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

same:lines 1,2,4,5,45,46,54,56,57,62,63,66,68,69,72,74,75,79,96-98,100,109,112-113,116,123-126,130-132,135,137-138,141-142,158-166,176-177,181,183,200,202,206,208,210,213-214,216-218(61 identical lines)

same at different place:23,25,27,29-31,33-37,39,103-104,106-107,144(17 that are claimed to be identical lines)
not same but same meaning:7,8,61,67,73,86-89,111,136,157,179-180
,182,190,194,196,198,201,207(21 equivalent lines)
almost the same 193
different value 47-52,65,71,115,134,140
not same 14,16,17,18,78,80-84,184,204

We get at most 100 equivalent lines and have no big blocks that are identical.(the biggest block that can be considered as equivalent is 141-183 and I can see there many empty lines that are not counted.

Note that
{
} are considered as identical lines and by that logic I can easily find many identical lines between every 2 programs.

Uri