Bob Hyatt says that....

[bob]

I agree with Bob that the chances of two original work being identical is relly low. Especially low for the resulting binaries to be identical.

However, what I disagree with is with the particular setjmp example.

First, it is argued that setjmp is so rare in usage, that, if it is found in a new code, then it must have been copied from Fruit. The reality is, the use of try/catch/jmp is very common and is a programming 'pattern'. When programmers see that there is process that can be interrupted and that its state is not needed, then one can simply restore from a saved state when interrupted.

Who, exactly, has said that? I only said that when comparing fruit and rybka, and seeing setjmp() in both, just shows that this is an even lower probability for a "by chance" accidental duplication by two independent programmers. The more rare the constructs used in two apparent copies, the more likely the two are actually related. I never said finding it in Rybka proved anything, I clearly said that it is just another small piece of data.

I don't see why every word I write has to be subject to exaggeration or interpreted based on oddball grammatical parsing rather than what was actually said.

Surely, no one would claim that Fruit was copied from TSCP, since TSCP used setjmp before Fruit did.

Nope, because we are looking at a significant block of code. And adding an oddball mechanism for terminating the search just makes the two codes look more like one came from the other.

If you study the code, you can see that "there is no copying of ideas" either. The implementations of known users of setjmp are all different.

I hate to be rude, but who cares? That is _not_ what has been discussed. The fact that two pieces of code have a significant number of identical lines, and then adding setjmp() only adds to the likelihood one came from the other.

Below is a demonstration of the way Fruit, Strelka and TSCP were coded. You will note that there are all very different from each other.

And again, who cares? Look at the fruit/rybka example instead, which shows the _identical_ way setjmp() (among other things) can be used. This has become a common approach to arguing in this discussion, and it is horribly flawed. First you say we said something we didn't say, then you try to show that that statement has exceptions. Who cares?

I snipped the rest as it is 100% irrelevant in the current discussion since it is arguing against a statement that has never been made in the first place.

[Uri Blass]

I agree with Bob that the chances of two original work being identical is relly low. Especially low for the resulting binaries to be identical.

However, what I disagree with is with the particular setjmp example.

First, it is argued that setjmp is so rare in usage, that, if it is found in a new code, then it must have been copied from Fruit. The reality is, the use of try/catch/jmp is very common and is a programming 'pattern'. When programmers see that there is process that can be interrupted and that its state is not needed, then one can simply restore from a saved state when interrupted.

Who, exactly, has said that? I only said that when comparing fruit and rybka, and seeing setjmp() in both, just shows that this is an even lower probability for a "by chance" accidental duplication by two independent programmers.

It is clear that Vas learned from the ideas in Fruit and one of the ideas is using setjmp().

Using specific function is an idea and it is not copy and paste.

How do you learn from existing source programs?
One of the ideas is simply to write the program not by copy and paste big parts but by starting from scratch and adding part of fruit that you can compile and you can understand until you get the full program.

In the beginning you copy and paste only some variables and some structures that you understand what they do and also add empty functions that you understand their job.

Later you understand the content of some function that is not dependent on functions that you did not write.

After understanding it you can give yourself an exercise to
write a function that does the same thing without copy and paste.

When you are succesful you get to the next function and continue with this way until you build the all program.

I think that this is the best way to understand a chess program.
At this stage you did not write your own chess program.

It is a lot of work and I did not do it but I imagine that you will have similiar parts if you start from scratch after doing it.

If after all this work you are attacked and people claim that you broke the GPL then it does not encurage programmers to really understand source of other people and I believe that reading is not enough to understand
and you may misunderstand some parts.

Uri

[Dr.Ex]

For months I delete ELChinito in the ATL-1 tournament for get more calm to this topic (ELChinito are a partner program of Arena Chess GUI). Fact is that Eugenio Castillo is working on his program and the results are just great. ELChinito made 250 nps (slow) on my Pentium IV 2.67 GHz Maxdata notebook but produce great results. Eugenio had rewritten the search (he are working a long time on it). I like the program ELChinito and the results of 13.5 : 3.5 vs. Crafty 19.18 with 40 moves in 20 minutes is very strong. I analyse the games and can find nothing which is to compare with Crafty. Crafty have simple no chance, its easy ..."

I think this is a rather surprising attitude from a chess programmer.
It does not matter how strong a derived program is.
If you base your work on the work of another programmer the least you can expect is a permission from the author and a "thank you" in the readme, except the original author has explicitly allowed it.
It's easy...

Castillo is not regarded as a criminal now. He apologised for this mistake. Case closed...

[Terry McCracken]

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 .....

Where did I wrote that there were "4000 corresponding identical code lines"?

At least until now your reasoning was just stubborn like "one line means nothing, let's go to the next, loop". Now you are making things up.

// Christophe

You are talking continuously about 4000 code lines. So they're neither corresponding, nor identical, nor consecutive? Just any old code lines?

Various examples below, accompanied by comments like: get 100000 monkeys off your hat, or "smart idiot" or "arrogant" or some other insult from you.

Christophe Theron wrote:
Another one: one line of code alone cannot breach the GPL. Let's look at this 4000 lines program. Line 1: cannot breach the GPL. OK check this one. Line 2: cannot breach the GPL. OK fine. Line 3: cannot breach... And so on.

Finally you will get your 1000000 monkeys off your hat.

You are (were) a programmer and deliberately play the smart idiot here. This is what I would call arrogant, because it would be better to tell me directly that you are not interested in looking at the evidence and that all you want is that people stop posting it and go directly to the FSF.

Christophe Theron wrote:
Of course by dissecting the source code into individual lines you can use the argument "one line of code cannot possibly breach the GPL".

Considering that a 4000 lines program is composed of individual lines, and that no single line alone can breach any copyright license, then it follows that none of these lines can breach the GPL and so the program is clean.

We are talking of blocks of code that are identical or equivalent semantically. The probability of them happening in two programs writen independantly is so tiny that it makes them appear suspicious.

Christophe Theron wrote:
(warning: the above is use of the argument: "one single line of code cannot violate any copyright, so 4000 of them cannot either")

Again, where did I say I was talking about 4000 corresponding identical lines?

You are not an idiot, you are clearly a clever guy. You are posturing as an idiot in order to completely obstruct the debate.

I find this attitude arrogant because you seem to be confident that your expertise in programming will allow you to deceive people with less expertise. You are using expertise as a mean of obstruction.

In your first attempts I thought you were trying to offer some balance to the claims and the evidence posted, because no other people with expertise was doing it. I could at least find this justification for some questionable reasoning you were using, because it is true that both sides need to be defended.

But lately you have increasingly been resorting to obstruction. So systematically actually that I think Vas would be better defended by silence, which he was using with significant success before your interventions.



// Christophe

Christophe, I agree. What I'd like to know is what is this need Chris has to play these semantic et al games? What has he to gain? He can't win?

He must think he can, despite logic. But it doesn't answer why? To fulfill ego? To control? To impress? What's the point? Such struggles are futile.
It is an interesting study in human behaviour at best, but he's the one being studied in reality.

Terry

[pedrox]

For months I delete ELChinito in the ATL-1 tournament for get more calm to this topic (ELChinito are a partner program of Arena Chess GUI). Fact is that Eugenio Castillo is working on his program and the results are just great. ELChinito made 250 nps (slow) on my Pentium IV 2.67 GHz Maxdata notebook but produce great results. Eugenio had rewritten the search (he are working a long time on it). I like the program ELChinito and the results of 13.5 : 3.5 vs. Crafty 19.18 with 40 moves in 20 minutes is very strong. I analyse the games and can find nothing which is to compare with Crafty. Crafty have simple no chance, its easy ..."

I think this is a rather surprising attitude from a chess programmer.
It does not matter how strong a derived program is.
If you base your work on the work of another programmer the least you can expect is a permission from the author and a "thank you" in the readme, except the original author has explicitly allowed it.
It's easy...

Castillo is not regarded as a criminal now. He apologised for this mistake. Case closed...

You have manipulated the words of my message.

My message start:

Thx

I only found in Arena this:

"Unfortunately, clones are the topics which produced always the biggest threads in popular computer chess fora. In all of these bigger discuss in the past the well-known self artists are on the first positions with a lot of comments. A good example was the clone discuss to ELChinito. ELChinito programmer Eugenio Castillo is working more as 12 years in chess programming. His older DOS program Eugen (playwing strenght = around 2.400 ELO) is a good example for Eugenio's fantastic work. A self artist search the sensation and used popular chess fora for his publication. It is a disgrace for the chess community and fora administrators to support such discuss to outstanding personalities, like Eugenio Castillo.

Again, we are speaking about a person, which made chess programming since more as 12 years!
This programmer got an attack from a lot of persons we know only from nonsens WWW forum messages. And all this without to speak with Eugenio "Face to Face". A lot of Manitou's are sitting in a small chambers and like it to used the keyboard for his wild fantasy. What can I say? Unfortunately, we are speaking from humans!"

If you look at the message that I have written, these words are not mine, but the content of what is spoken on "El Chinito" on page Arena. I have not expressed my opinion about it, I was just asking for information about it.

I do not know what he did Eugene Castillo on its engine, but I do not think that his name is clean if your engine is officially considered a clone.

The questions that I did in the forum were aimed at obtaining information about the evidence El Chinito a clone.

Pedro

[Dr.Ex]

For months I delete ELChinito in the ATL-1 tournament for get more calm to this topic (ELChinito are a partner program of Arena Chess GUI). Fact is that Eugenio Castillo is working on his program and the results are just great. ELChinito made 250 nps (slow) on my Pentium IV 2.67 GHz Maxdata notebook but produce great results. Eugenio had rewritten the search (he are working a long time on it). I like the program ELChinito and the results of 13.5 : 3.5 vs. Crafty 19.18 with 40 moves in 20 minutes is very strong. I analyse the games and can find nothing which is to compare with Crafty. Crafty have simple no chance, its easy ..."

I think this is a rather surprising attitude from a chess programmer.
It does not matter how strong a derived program is.
If you base your work on the work of another programmer the least you can expect is a permission from the author and a "thank you" in the readme, except the original author has explicitly allowed it.
It's easy...

Castillo is not regarded as a criminal now. He apologised for this mistake. Case closed...

You have manipulated the words of my message.

My message start:

Thx

I only found in Arena this:

Sorry, I mistakenly took this as your own words.
Maybe you should have written:
"I found this on the playwitharena website."
Just forget what I wrote.

[pedrox]

Ok, thank you.

Pedro

[tiger]

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 .....

Where did I wrote that there were "4000 corresponding identical code lines"?

At least until now your reasoning was just stubborn like "one line means nothing, let's go to the next, loop". Now you are making things up.

// Christophe

You are talking continuously about 4000 code lines. So they're neither corresponding, nor identical, nor consecutive? Just any old code lines?

Various examples below, accompanied by comments like: get 100000 monkeys off your hat, or "smart idiot" or "arrogant" or some other insult from you.

Christophe Theron wrote:
Another one: one line of code alone cannot breach the GPL. Let's look at this 4000 lines program. Line 1: cannot breach the GPL. OK check this one. Line 2: cannot breach the GPL. OK fine. Line 3: cannot breach... And so on.

Finally you will get your 1000000 monkeys off your hat.

You are (were) a programmer and deliberately play the smart idiot here. This is what I would call arrogant, because it would be better to tell me directly that you are not interested in looking at the evidence and that all you want is that people stop posting it and go directly to the FSF.

Christophe Theron wrote:
Of course by dissecting the source code into individual lines you can use the argument "one line of code cannot possibly breach the GPL".

Considering that a 4000 lines program is composed of individual lines, and that no single line alone can breach any copyright license, then it follows that none of these lines can breach the GPL and so the program is clean.

We are talking of blocks of code that are identical or equivalent semantically. The probability of them happening in two programs writen independantly is so tiny that it makes them appear suspicious.

Christophe Theron wrote:
(warning: the above is use of the argument: "one single line of code cannot violate any copyright, so 4000 of them cannot either")

Again, where did I say I was talking about 4000 corresponding identical lines?

You are not an idiot, you are clearly a clever guy. You are posturing as an idiot in order to completely obstruct the debate.

I find this attitude arrogant because you seem to be confident that your expertise in programming will allow you to deceive people with less expertise. You are using expertise as a mean of obstruction.

In your first attempts I thought you were trying to offer some balance to the claims and the evidence posted, because no other people with expertise was doing it. I could at least find this justification for some questionable reasoning you were using, because it is true that both sides need to be defended.

But lately you have increasingly been resorting to obstruction. So systematically actually that I think Vas would be better defended by silence, which he was using with significant success before your interventions.



// Christophe

Christophe, I agree. What I'd like to know is what is this need Chris has to play these semantic et al games? What has he to gain? He can't win?

He must think he can, despite logic. But it doesn't answer why? To fulfill ego? To control? To impress? What's the point? Such struggles are futile.
It is an interesting study in human behaviour at best, but he's the one being studied in reality.

Terry

I have no idea why he is drifting away so much. I think that even people who lack the expertise in programming now understand that his arguments have only one goal: to prevent any reasonable discussion about similarities.

At first I thought it was just to provide some balance to what had been provided, but now it's getting so extreme that I guess there is something behind. I don't believe ChrisW has any connection to Vas, so it's probably more an ideological fight.



// Christophe

[tiger]

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.

So if you publish the story of Matrix and replace the character names Neo, Trinity and Morpheus by John, Sarah and Peter, then you believe will never be caught?

Because as soon as I put back the real name in place in order to demonstrate your plagiarism you will call me a creative reverse engineer artist and will say that I have made up the whole thing to make it look like an existing story?

Substituting what is believed to be the real original names is the correct thing to do. If no plagiarism has ever taken place, this subsitution will never work. In the above example, if I try with Luke Sywalker, Dark Vador and Yoda, it simply does not work.

Your refutation of the method is simply obstruction. Your only goal is to prevent any sensible discussion to happen.

The most disgusting is that you are using your expertise in programming to deceive the people who do not have this expertise.



// Christophe

[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.

So if you publish the story of Matrix and replace the character names Neo, Trinity and Morpheus by John, Sarah and Peter, then you believe will never be caught?

Because as soon as I put back the real name in place in order to demonstrate your plagiarism you will call me a creative reverse engineer artist and will say that I have made up the whole thing to make it look like an existing story?

Substituting what is believed to be the real original names is the correct thing to do. If no plagiarism has ever taken place, this subsitution will never work. In the above example, if I try with Luke Sywalker, Dark Vador and Yoda, it simply does not work.

Your refutation of the method is simply obstruction. Your only goal is to prevent any sensible discussion to happen.

The most disgusting is that you are using your expertise in programming to deceive the people who do not have this expertise.



// Christophe

Still trolling?

Disgusting are your mean and damaging attacks without evidence on another programmer.

Your repeated personal attacks on me are a sign of desperation, imo.

Why not go away and quietly produce this evidence you keep telling us all you've got, come back when you've got it? Why spend so much time here trolling and insulting instead?