Rybka Coding Posts

[Albert Silver]

Just to make things funnier -- no evil intentions -- look at the link I found yesterday

http://www.program-transformation.org/T ... lavRajlich

Weird, isn't it?

I was laughing may be 2 minutes when I found it and I'm smiling every time I'm reading this address again

No harm feelings,
Geno

I am missing the joke I guess. It's his father.

http://www.rajlich.com/

Albert

[Harvey Williamson]

Just to make things funnier -- no evil intentions -- look at the link I found yesterday

http://www.program-transformation.org/T ... lavRajlich

Weird, isn't it?

I was laughing may be 2 minutes when I found it and I'm smiling every time I'm reading this address again

No harm feelings,
Geno

I am missing the joke I guess. It's his father.

http://www.rajlich.com/

Albert

If you click on the family link you get

[RegicideX]

I am missing the joke I guess. It's his father.

Albert

The joke is that his father wrote about "program transformation."

A joke is rarely funny if it gets explained.

[GenoM]

Just to make things funnier -- no evil intentions -- look at the link I found yesterday

http://www.program-transformation.org/T ... lavRajlich

Weird, isn't it?

I was laughing may be 2 minutes when I found it and I'm smiling every time I'm reading this address again

No harm feelings,
Geno

I am missing the joke I guess. It's his father.

http://www.rajlich.com/

Albert

Sorry, I was thinking it's just a namesake and found it strange that he's a computer engineer too inclined in programs transformation.

[bob]

<snipped>

[ You are the only one arguing against the evidence that has been presented

That's one more false accusation. Among programmers, Uri doesn't accept what you call "evidence" as such, and neither does Ed: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 8f47098807 , etc.

Your attempt to single out Chris won't work.

I can add that Miguel A. Ballicora(programmer of gaviota) also did not accept the evidence

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=40

Uri

Thanks, Uri, you are right. So it is Chris, you, Ed and Miguel. Four programmers that don't swallow that whatever has been presented so far is "evidence". It makes all the more interesting this attempt to:

1. Single Chris out.
2. Pretend that irrefutable evidence is already out there.

Enrique

No, there goes the discussion once again. Show me where anyone actually participating in the discussion says that "irrefutable evidence" has been shown yet. I have not seen that from any of the people presenting the data. This is a slow process. I doubt you have seen the last of the evidence either. And every additional piece does push this toward "irrefutable". But it isn't there yet. The ones arguing against _any_ presented evidence are trying to use this tactic over and over. "What you are showing is not absolute proof". But nobody that has introduced hard evidence has yet claimed or even implied that. I would not be surprised if as the days go by, this "accidental duplication" becomes harder and harder for more and more people to swallow. Every new thing I have seen makes me go "hmmm"... this "book" is in chapter 1. It will take a while to reach "the end". Best to not base opinion on just chapter one, if I did that there would be many good fiction novels that I would never have completed.

The beginning of every Clive Cussler novel is usually very boring and buried in the ancient past. Later the preliminary stuff introduced there has a critical impact on his storyline... Same here.

[pedrox]

Trolling again, Christophe.

At the start of this process, I reported back to CCC that Vas had said he was happy to answer a list of concerns if your side was to produce one.

Your side, including Zach, if I remember correct, said, in effect that I was baised, they didn't trust me to send the questions or censor them or whatever, and they would do the sending themselves.

I paraphrase that as a 'ban' on me to be any more involved in trying to get your side (a) to formally formulate its position and (b) to 'send' the position from the CCC to Vas when it was prepared.

You are certainly a talented mind reader engineer artist if you call this a "ban".

I call it 'ban' because it was actually quite rude of you, I thought. Obviously I was never going to do anything else than transmit accurately whatever concern list was prepared.

Go troll yourself. There's little point in discussion with you because (a) you should be preparing your attack evidence, not wasting your time here in content free threads and (b) you're reducing the interaction between me and you to bad-tempered, content free nonsense, which ultimately just demeans the process.

What is the point in preparing anything if you brush it away with techniques such as calling disassembling "creative reverse engineering by an artist" and such?

Reverse engineering and trying to have the reconstructed source fit the source of the original work is perfectly valid. It is what the courts do when they use "semantical abstraction".

You are trying to picture this as a completely non-scientific process when it is the contrary.

Either you believe it is not scientific, and then you are a really poor expert, or you know it is valid and you try to deceive people with your allegations.

In any case, it is what the courts do. Sorry if you do not like the process.

// Christophe

For non-technical readers the reverse engineering process goes this way, I'll start with the original program.

Vas writes source code, in C language (we assume). This source code contains huge amounts of text and named labels. The names will be of variables, functions and so on. The C code is readable, it is not too far from actual english, in the sense that a programmer can generally understand it and follow its algorithmic reasoning.

Vas then puts this source code through a compiler, the compiler produces executable code which is what you buy when you buy Rybka. The executable code doesn't contain all those variable and function names or other pieces of anymore, they are all thrown away. The executable is generally unreadable, in that it's too complex, contains no label information and is written in assembler language which is several steps too far removed from English.

Additionally, the executable is put through an optimiser which changes the order that instructions are executed in, and does some other fancy tricks, further removing the executable code from its parallel prior existence as C code.


Now along comes the reverse engineer. His task is to take this optimised executable code and reconstitute the original C code. He has no labels or function names (they've been thrown away). He has to hunt around in the relatively unreadable assembler code trying to work out what does this and what does that. He guesses at what variables do. He creatively assigns names to variables and functions. Gradually and time comsumingly, he manages to put together bits and pieces of C language with labels names and function names that are his guesses, inventions, intuitions. Sometimes he'll get it right and sometimes wrong. Art not science.

Christophe appears angry because he claims I am trying to trash the entire reverse engineering process. Just to assuage Christophe's anger I can state, no, I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to provide some balance to the idea that the reverse engineered C code is 100% scientific and 100% accurate, because it is not. I'm also pointing out that the label and function names contained within it are *not* in the original Vas source, but are created by the reverse engineer in deliberate parallel with the target program that is accused of being copied.

I'm also trying to point out, as was Ed with his tunnel vision post, that the reverse engineer, if not totally impartial, runs the risk of finding things that are not there.

Ultimately, the purpose of this critique is to prevent the antis, or their program knowledgable ones, from being able to say: "we disassembled it and found it was the same" and for all the readers just to accept that.

A critique of the disassembly process as ducking stool, so to speak.

Their disassembly has to be open to criticism and open to repeat disassembly process and alternative possibility by less involved people.

No more and no less.

I can look at CW and Ed as two special programmers to which I did not get either the shoe, but comments on disassembly programs by Chris and acceptance by Ed makes no sense, is completely ridiculous.

If the disassembly allowed Yury Osipov build Strelka from assembler code of Rybka and for Vas Strelka is a clone, then also make it possible to compare the disassembly of Rybka and Fruit.

If we have to see the disassembly as something artistic, then Yury Osipov is the greatest artist of all.

If the disassembly is used in court because it is 100% scientific or near that figure.

Many people suffer from contradictions.

I still do not have a specific opinion if Vas began Rybka from Fruit, so I try not to comment either for or against.

But my opinion is that if this is a boxing match, the boxer trained by Zach, Cristophe, Bob ... is gaining points to the boxer trained by Vas and followers on evidence presented and refuted, but then there are 3 arbitrators that despite the almost complete loser in the hospital may declare champion fighter.

I do not agree with CW that an engine parts that are not important and he decides whether they are or not. It has much more merit to make a program of scratch (unaided, without other codes of other programs) and that your program play with 1500 ELO points and that is stable, that for example to start with TSCP already is stable and make your engine 700 points more until 2500.

Programmers and especially those with top engines, are responsible for the actions of future programmers arriving at chess.

What I'm seeing on the part of some of these programmers and other users is that you can initiate a program of open source, even GPL, gives you something differential program, style of play, analysis ... if you get that your program better than playing the number 1 you can go to commercial and you will have no problem licensing despite start begun open source, because logically to be the number 1 you has to modify the search and evaluation to make stronger.

Pedro

[Graham Banks]

Tell me, Graham, do you remember a few cases where an engine has been banned from further tesing by the CCRL? Which ones and why?



// Christophe

We stopped testing Strelka. That's all.

[mephisto]

Me and my big mouth.
Another seven pages !!!
Bryan

[Terry McCracken]

<snipped>

[ You are the only one arguing against the evidence that has been presented

That's one more false accusation. Among programmers, Uri doesn't accept what you call "evidence" as such, and neither does Ed: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 8f47098807 , etc.

Your attempt to single out Chris won't work.

I can add that Miguel A. Ballicora(programmer of gaviota) also did not accept the evidence

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=40

Uri

Thanks, Uri, you are right. So it is Chris, you, Ed and Miguel. Four programmers that don't swallow that whatever has been presented so far is "evidence". It makes all the more interesting this attempt to:

1. Single Chris out.
2. Pretend that irrefutable evidence is already out there.

Enrique

Enrique, quit making foolish statements.

1. No one is singling Chris out but Chris himself with his regular tricks.

2. No one has claimed irrefutable evidence.

Please look at this objectively for a change. This goes for Ed as well. Chris, well he can't help himself as he's consumed by the worst of the Seven Deadly Sins!

[tiger]

Tell me, Graham, do you remember a few cases where an engine has been banned from further tesing by the CCRL? Which ones and why?



// Christophe

We stopped testing Strelka. That's all.

I assume you did so because Strelka was convicted of something by some legal official entity?



// Christophe