Split 4 from Zach technical thread

[Zach Wegner]

Zach,

I won't comment on the UCI go parser, this is the sort of coding I had done for me by support programmers and its outside the engine and I don't really understand it. I'm looking for a proof that exists within engine code, not UCI, I understand some people may take issue, but to show one engine is a clone of another surely requires *engine* code correspondence, no?

This is engine code.

For the rest of your comments, you are really stretching logic. You can take each one of these in isolation and say "that's just an idea". But when you start accumulating tens and then hundreds of these "coincidences", the odds don't look too good. I would imagine any engine author besides Uri would look at the first post in this thread and think "hmmm... that is a little suspicious....". That's all you can do. I can show as much disassembly as I can, but it will be rejected by you as hieroglyphics. Then I can post simple English similarities of low level engine code, and it will be rejected by you, because it's not code. I am constructing some C code now, but that is quite tedious and I'm making sure it's 100% correct. But what are the chances that anyone looks at it? Right now it doesn't seem like you are providing loyal opposition, merely trying to agitate.

You have brought again a pointless debate into my thread. Good job.

[chrisw]

Zach,

I won't comment on the UCI go parser, this is the sort of coding I had done for me by support programmers and its outside the engine and I don't really understand it. I'm looking for a proof that exists within engine code, not UCI, I understand some people may take issue, but to show one engine is a clone of another surely requires *engine* code correspondence, no?

This is engine code.

For the rest of your comments, you are really stretching logic. You can take each one of these in isolation and say "that's just an idea". But when you start accumulating tens and then hundreds of these "coincidences", the odds don't look too good. I would imagine any engine author besides Uri would look at the first post in this thread and think "hmmm... that is a little suspicious....". That's all you can do. I can show as much disassembly as I can, but it will be rejected by you as hieroglyphics. Then I can post simple English similarities of low level engine code, and it will be rejected by you, because it's not code. I am constructing some C code now, but that is quite tedious and I'm making sure it's 100% correct. But what are the chances that anyone looks at it? Right now it doesn't seem like you are providing loyal opposition, merely trying to agitate.

You have brought again a pointless debate into my thread. Good job.

Well, there's a danger of losing track of what code is posted, but I thought one bunch of code was root-search and the other interface parameter handling. Not helped by being told go and look for it when asking for links.

Zach, if allegations, questions, suspicions get bandied around directed at another programmer and his living you can expect some pretty vigorous questioning of the questions and the data produced. I apologise for what I sense is your frustration, its always frustrating being questioned and challenged when one tries to make something that one thinks will be well received and has been put together with hard work and effort. Imagine how Vas must feel.

It takes two (or more) to threadango btw. My earlier contribution was hopefully a helpful suggestion - namely put togther your best case example, preferably from the engine and we can concentrate our fire on that rather than on discombobulated bits of code splattered around the place some from Strelka even. Show us your best shot.