Some may find this post of great interest ? Vas?

[yanquis1972]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

Interesting comments by the experts.

CW thinks it shows that both Rybka and IPPO stem from the same source code. He theorizes that one programmer left the Rybka team to then make IPPO. However, since Rybka is not a team programming effort, and just one man...

Then Zach thinks BB's claims that his analysis was derived without a tool such as IDA is ridiculous.

neither of these paragraphs are remotely accurate.

[Graham Banks]

I replied to Sven's original post and found out that my post was removed almost immediately. I assure you that my post was civil and did not insult anyone. Why was it removed? Jeremy? Swami? Could you please explain?

thank you

Well I have been asleep (8am) here as I post, so I have no idea. Sorry.

Cheers,
Graham.

[David Dahlem]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

CW thinks it shows that both Rybka and IPPO stem from the same source code.

That is not what CW said. This is what he said ...

"There is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code both owe quite a lot to ideas (not code, necessarily) from the same source (using source in its original meaning not source code)"

You curiously only chose to repeat one of the three postulations he posted.

That was his second, which means that unless you think Rybka 3 came from some unknown third-party program, it suggests very strongly that IPPO, which came a full year later came from the same source as Rybka 3: Rybka 3.

His first postulation was Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team "Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team"

and his 3rd was "could be that Rybka's programmer departed the company and went away and wrote IPPOLIT.".

All three explanations still suggest essentially the same thing, that Rybka and IPPO come from the same source/person/team. The only differences are in how this happened.

First of all, you have the first, second, and third postulations mixed up. And you conveniently leave out his "There is the possibility" from his postulations.

For the sake of accuracy, here are his three postulations ...

1. there's no re-compilation of disassembled code here, too much stuff is different and it looks like the ideas in IPPOLIT are implemented such that the programmer absolutely has to fully understand what he is doing. the many listed differences require far too much skill to leave to a non-understanding re-compilation. there doesn't even seem to be evidence of fragments of re-compiled or stolen material, the closest I read was in piece tables but they're not that close, have substantial differences anyway, and the possible 'close' matches are explainable and probably repeatable in many programs piece tables.

2. there is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team, if I was investigating this, that's were I would put a strong line of questioning and research

3. There is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code both owe quite a lot to ideas (not code, necessarily) from the same source (using source in its original meaning not source code)

[Albert Silver]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

CW thinks it shows that both Rybka and IPPO stem from the same source code.

That is not what CW said. This is what he said ...

"There is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code both owe quite a lot to ideas (not code, necessarily) from the same source (using source in its original meaning not source code)"

You curiously only chose to repeat one of the three postulations he posted.

That was his second, which means that unless you think Rybka 3 came from some unknown third-party program, it suggests very strongly that IPPO, which came a full year later came from the same source as Rybka 3: Rybka 3.

His first postulation was Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team "Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team"

and his 3rd was "could be that Rybka's programmer departed the company and went away and wrote IPPOLIT.".

All three explanations still suggest essentially the same thing, that Rybka and IPPO come from the same source/person/team. The only differences are in how this happened.

First of all, you have the first, second, and third postulations mixed up. And you conveniently leave out his "There is the possibility" from his postulations.

For the sake of accuracy, here are his three postulations ...

1. there's no re-compilation of disassembled code here, too much stuff is different and it looks like the ideas in IPPOLIT are implemented such that the programmer absolutely has to fully understand what he is doing. the many listed differences require far too much skill to leave to a non-understanding re-compilation. there doesn't even seem to be evidence of fragments of re-compiled or stolen material, the closest I read was in piece tables but they're not that close, have substantial differences anyway, and the possible 'close' matches are explainable and probably repeatable in many programs piece tables.

2. there is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team, if I was investigating this, that's were I would put a strong line of questioning and research

3. There is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code both owe quite a lot to ideas (not code, necessarily) from the same source (using source in its original meaning not source code)

You forgot one.

[David Dahlem]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

CW thinks it shows that both Rybka and IPPO stem from the same source code.

That is not what CW said. This is what he said ...

"There is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code both owe quite a lot to ideas (not code, necessarily) from the same source (using source in its original meaning not source code)"

You curiously only chose to repeat one of the three postulations he posted.

That was his second, which means that unless you think Rybka 3 came from some unknown third-party program, it suggests very strongly that IPPO, which came a full year later came from the same source as Rybka 3: Rybka 3.

His first postulation was Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team "Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team"

and his 3rd was "could be that Rybka's programmer departed the company and went away and wrote IPPOLIT.".

All three explanations still suggest essentially the same thing, that Rybka and IPPO come from the same source/person/team. The only differences are in how this happened.

First of all, you have the first, second, and third postulations mixed up. And you conveniently leave out his "There is the possibility" from his postulations.

For the sake of accuracy, here are his three postulations ...

1. there's no re-compilation of disassembled code here, too much stuff is different and it looks like the ideas in IPPOLIT are implemented such that the programmer absolutely has to fully understand what he is doing. the many listed differences require far too much skill to leave to a non-understanding re-compilation. there doesn't even seem to be evidence of fragments of re-compiled or stolen material, the closest I read was in piece tables but they're not that close, have substantial differences anyway, and the possible 'close' matches are explainable and probably repeatable in many programs piece tables.

2. there is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code were written substantially by the same person/team, if I was investigating this, that's were I would put a strong line of questioning and research

3. There is the possibility that the Rybka code and the IPPOLIT code both owe quite a lot to ideas (not code, necessarily) from the same source (using source in its original meaning not source code)

You forgot one.

I know my eyesight is not what it used to be, but i only see three.

[Robert Flesher]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

Interesting comments by the experts.

CW thinks it shows that both Rybka and IPPO stem from the same source code. He theorizes that one programmer left the Rybka team to then make IPPO. However, since Rybka is not a team programming effort, and just one man...

Then Zach thinks BB's claims that his analysis was derived without a tool such as IDA is ridiculous.

Albert, I think you left out his most interesting reply. I quote CW,

" ok, I read through fairly rapidly, I'm assuming the comparisons and detail are all accurate and honest btw, and the 'fast' conclusion is

1. there's no re-compilation of disassembled code here, too much stuff is different and it looks like the ideas in IPPOLIT are implemented such that the programmer absolutely has to fully understand what he is doing. the many listed differences require far too much skill to leave to a non-understanding re-compilation. there doesn't even seem to be evidence of fragments of re-compiled or stolen material, the closest I read was in piece tables but they're not that close, have substantial differences anyway, and the possible 'close' matches are explainable and probably repeatable in many programs piece tables. "

This seems more to the heart of the matter, capiche?

[BTO7]

This looks like a IPPLOIT smoking GUN. Nothing appears to be the the same between the programs. The idea that are the same both seem to be fruit based and i think defamation of character is on VAS part. If the same source turns out to be .....the same MAN programmer ? what a play on words Vas has used then. Thus any similarities would be more along the lines of handwriting then a different person copying. Time to UN-BAN IPPO's with a public apology by Vas. He can't make chicken salad from his chicken.... statements on the issue. He has more explaining how hes charging for the free source (20% as he said) of fruit then Ippo's taking anything from his program more then what fruit offered both programs in the first place. This is WAY beyond cut and paste lol or as Vas put it the LARGE part of IPPO's being Rybka base. Vas should publicly apologize for causing the IPPO team to be banned on word alone ....what a SHAME !

Regards
BT

[bob]

http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=119

Interesting comments by the experts.

CW thinks it shows that both Rybka and IPPO stem from the same source code. He theorizes that one programmer left the Rybka team to then make IPPO. However, since Rybka is not a team programming effort, and just one man...

Then Zach thinks BB's claims that his analysis was derived without a tool such as IDA is ridiculous.

You don't really need IDA. There are two separate questions.

If you want to really compare A to B, and you have the binary of A and the source of B, it is _much_ easier to use a real asm-back-to-C tool so that you have "sorta-apples to apples".

If you are looking for similarities or differences, and are proficient at ASM, then just the debugger will do fine. With some experience, once can compare C and asm and get a good idea of whether they are similar or not. "identical" is harder.

[bob]

Then Zach thinks BB's claims that his analysis was derived without a tool such as IDA is ridiculous.

No, you have completely misunderstood what I said.

You wrote it. What did you mean then?

you can't understand this:

It is very impressive, but IMO the most impressive part about it is that BB says he did this without IDA or any other tool, but just by using the output of objdump. Pretty ridiculous.

Hint:

ridiculous: amazing. astounding. remarkable. Etc.

not

ridiculous: bullshit. nonsense. impossible. bogus. Etc.

I had absolutely no problem understanding what he meant without even a second's worth of thought. Note the key words "very impressive". as opposed "what a crock" or whatever.

[Albert Silver]

Then Zach thinks BB's claims that his analysis was derived without a tool such as IDA is ridiculous.

No, you have completely misunderstood what I said.

You wrote it. What did you mean then?

you can't understand this:

It is very impressive, but IMO the most impressive part about it is that BB says he did this without IDA or any other tool, but just by using the output of objdump. Pretty ridiculous.

Hint:

ridiculous: amazing. astounding. remarkable. Etc.

not

ridiculous: bullshit. nonsense. impossible. bogus. Etc.

I had absolutely no problem understanding what he meant without even a second's worth of thought. Note the key words "very impressive". as opposed "what a crock" or whatever.

No doubt one of the virtues of working in an environment with students: you stay up to speed in colloquialisms.