TalkChess.com

George Tsavdaris wrote: Also one does not have the legal right to disassemble one's EXE and use the findings for his favor.

I believe that at least in the USA you do have that right, as long as you haven't agreed to a license that prohibits it, and the exe is not encrypted.

Dann Corbit wrote:

Christopher Conkie wrote:

Dann Corbit wrote:Strelka is not a clone.

Having the same evaluation as Rybka for some positions is not a crime as far as I know.

Unless there has been industrial espionage where code was stolen (and I suppose that the odds of this are zero) then nothing wrong has taken place.

There is nothing wrong with studying how a program solves a problem and emulating this yourself.

Consider this:
A team dissassembled an operating system (MS-DOS) and wrote a specification of exactly how it worked.
A second team took this specification and wrote a clone operating system (DR-DOS, also some others did it too). There was nothing illegal about this.

All in all, I do not think that something like that has happened either.

We need to talk by mail if thats ok.

You say you saw the code Dann.

That big lump of data....right?

I think the rest should be by mail.

Regards

Christopher

Any conversation should be in the open.

His material table is not a hidden, internal binary. It is a data table used in his eval function.

For me, this is a dead issue. I think that the treatment of the Strelka author (including my own behavior initially) is a big embarrassment to the chess community and we should all hang our heads over it.

Get Brian Hoffman's position also. I am sure that he will echo what I have said. I have looked at his code, what it is doing and how it is doing it. Not a clone at all, but interesting and original ideas.

Time to leave him alone and get on with it.

I do echo these beliefs and even Vask is getting sick of them (http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=1655). To all conspiracy believers I can be reached to talk about this in person in Area 51 at the southwest side of groom lake''


Bryan

Bryan Hofmann wrote:

Dann Corbit wrote:

Christopher Conkie wrote:

Dann Corbit wrote:Strelka is not a clone.

Having the same evaluation as Rybka for some positions is not a crime as far as I know.

Unless there has been industrial espionage where code was stolen (and I suppose that the odds of this are zero) then nothing wrong has taken place.

There is nothing wrong with studying how a program solves a problem and emulating this yourself.

Consider this:
A team dissassembled an operating system (MS-DOS) and wrote a specification of exactly how it worked.
A second team took this specification and wrote a clone operating system (DR-DOS, also some others did it too). There was nothing illegal about this.

All in all, I do not think that something like that has happened either.

We need to talk by mail if thats ok.

You say you saw the code Dann.

That big lump of data....right?

I think the rest should be by mail.

Regards

Christopher

Any conversation should be in the open.

His material table is not a hidden, internal binary. It is a data table used in his eval function.

For me, this is a dead issue. I think that the treatment of the Strelka author (including my own behavior initially) is a big embarrassment to the chess community and we should all hang our heads over it.

Get Brian Hoffman's position also. I am sure that he will echo what I have said. I have looked at his code, what it is doing and how it is doing it. Not a clone at all, but interesting and original ideas.

Time to leave him alone and get on with it.

I do echo these beliefs and even Vask is getting sick of them (http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=1655). To all conspiracy believers I can be reached to talk about this in person in Area 51 at the southwest side of groom lake''


Bryan

Hello Bryan,

Could you answer some of these please?

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 58&t=14925

Regards

Christopher

Imho, I think the chances of unassembling Rybka code is much, much less than the chances that one of Vas' computers got hacked.

Norm Pollock wrote:Imho, I think the chances of unassembling Rybka code is much, much less than the chances that one of Vas' computers got hacked.

I agree Norm.



Christopher

Norm Pollock wrote:Imho, I think the chances of unassembling Rybka code is much, much less than the chances that one of Vas' computers got hacked.

Please read my response to Uri on this matter;

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... ew=threads

Bryan

Most dissasemblers can not handle the Rybka 1.0 beta exe. However, I found one that does dissasemble the entire file and creates code that when reasembled, runs perfectly. But I will not give the name of it for obvious reasons. But, also the symbols for search, eval, etc do not appear in the generated file like it does for the Dark Avenger. There is a chance that Vasik accidentally released a version that did not have the symbol table stripped from it, i.e. it had some debug info. I've heard of this happening before.

With out symbols like that exist in the Dark Avenger examples I could not possibly find the time to figure out what all the functions did. With symbols it could just be a few months work. But, then I must ask why in the heck are the symbols left in both programs. If the author of Strelka found these symbols and used them then he would have been smart enough to make sure that they were not in his release.

So, either the Dark Avenger is lying about the symbols being present or someone is perpetrating a hoax or the athors of both programs are not very bright for leaving the symbols in the exe. Or I am missing something. One way of getting a debug version with all the symbols in it is to hack someones computer and steal it. Why take a debug version when you can take the program code itself?

Maybe this is just a setup to embarrass people. Who knows, I certainly do not know.

Edit: Another posibility is that Vasik had testers for his program and he accidentally sent out a debug version or one of his testers got access to his computer.

Dann Corbit wrote: I have looked at his code, what it is doing and how it is doing it. Not a clone at all, but interesting and original ideas.

It is HORRIFYING how ILLOGICAL this is!! For being able to conclude that code B is NOT a clone of code A, you need BOTH, A+B, to compare. If you have B only, what do you compare it with?!

Do you claim that any code containing "interesting ideas" which are new TO YOU, cannot be a clone?! How would you know that these ideas and their code parts in code B aren't simpy taken from code A, if you don't know code A?

You made a big mistake and you know it, Bryan too.

This clone is so PLAIN OBVIOUS that it is nerve-wracking to watch this comedy turn into a boring never ending soap. Maybe it was funny in the beginning, but now it has become a disgrace for the fan community harming it's reputation as a whole.

Norm Pollock wrote:Imho, I think the chances of unassembling Rybka code is much, much less than the chances that one of Vas' computers got hacked.

Please then also read Martin Bryant's post about this http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 68&t=14946

Please also read this other post from Bryan if you have not yet done so or the original post from Vasik Rajlich

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 30&t=14970

Please also read some posts from Dann Corbit today

Eelco

Mike S. wrote:

Dann Corbit wrote: I have looked at his code, what it is doing and how it is doing it. Not a clone at all, but interesting and original ideas.

It is HORRIFYING how ILLOGICAL this is!! For being able to conclude that code B is NOT a clone of code A, you need BOTH, A+B, to compare. If you have B only, what do you compare it with?!

Do you claim that any code containing "interesting ideas" which are new TO YOU, cannot be a clone?! How would you know that these ideas and their code parts in code B aren't simpy taken from code A, if you don't know code A?

You made a big mistake and you know it, Bryan too.

This clone is so PLAIN OBVIOUS that it is nerve-wracking to watch this comedy turn into a boring never ending soap. Maybe it was funny in the beginning, but now it has become a disgrace for the fan community harming it's reputation as a whole.

I haven't read much of this...but I do know Vas should legally protect his program.

That's obvious.

Terry