lucasart wrote: With this TwinFish you not only prove my point,
But you never had a point
Engines that will show a 65+% similarity are derived, you don't need the source code, that still stands.
Until the source code is revealed, nothing proves that a closed source engine contains no foreign code.
Sure, never claimed otherwise.
The tool is useless to proof an engine original.
See the difference now?
Sorry, this cuts BOTH ways. It does not PROVE that engines are not original either. It just suggests that further analysis (code inspection) is required. This will NEVER "prove" anything.
lucasart wrote: With this TwinFish you not only prove my point,
But you never had a point
Engines that will show a 65+% similarity are derived, you don't need the source code, that still stands.
Until the source code is revealed, nothing proves that a closed source engine contains no foreign code.
Sure, never claimed otherwise.
The tool is useless to proof an engine original.
See the difference now?
Sorry, this cuts BOTH ways. It does not PROVE that engines are not original either. It just suggests that further analysis (code inspection) is required. This will NEVER "prove" anything.
Yes, and fingerprint was not considered a proof until 1900 or so.
lucasart wrote: With this TwinFish you not only prove my point,
But you never had a point
Engines that will show a 65+% similarity are derived, you don't need the source code, that still stands.
Until the source code is revealed, nothing proves that a closed source engine contains no foreign code.
Sure, never claimed otherwise.
The tool is useless to proof an engine original.
See the difference now?
Sorry, this cuts BOTH ways. It does not PROVE that engines are not original either. It just suggests that further analysis (code inspection) is required. This will NEVER "prove" anything.
It does not cut both ways for those who have put energy in this subject.
lucasart wrote: With this TwinFish you not only prove my point,
But you never had a point
Engines that will show a 65+% similarity are derived, you don't need the source code, that still stands.
Until the source code is revealed, nothing proves that a closed source engine contains no foreign code.
Sure, never claimed otherwise.
The tool is useless to proof an engine original.
See the difference now?
Sorry, this cuts BOTH ways. It does not PROVE that engines are not original either. It just suggests that further analysis (code inspection) is required. This will NEVER "prove" anything.
Yes, and fingerprint was not considered a proof until 1900 or so.
This is NOT a "fingerprint". Two people walk down the street on different days. They stop at the same places. Coincidence? Do they know each other? Same person wearing two different disguises? Behavior just suggests something connects them. And we are talking behavior of a chess program, not fingerprints or DNA which comes from inside the source code.
lucasart wrote: With this TwinFish you not only prove my point,
But you never had a point
Engines that will show a 65+% similarity are derived, you don't need the source code, that still stands.
Until the source code is revealed, nothing proves that a closed source engine contains no foreign code.
Sure, never claimed otherwise.
The tool is useless to proof an engine original.
See the difference now?
Sorry, this cuts BOTH ways. It does not PROVE that engines are not original either. It just suggests that further analysis (code inspection) is required. This will NEVER "prove" anything.
It does not cut both ways for those who have put energy in this subject.
You can put as much energy in it as you want. It is not a "proof" by any definition of the word. At the very best, it suggests common roots or different roots. A court would take code comparison to show copyright infringement. It would NOT accept this kind of a test, by itself. Nor should it. I think it amusing that someone proves it has false negatives with the PST experiment, yet you discount that there can be false positives. What if someone takes program A and intentionally modifies program B so that it shows similar best moves and scores? Without copying a thing. Without looking at program A's source. Possible? Of course, as there is nothing that proves otherwise..
I wish it was that easy. Unfortunately it is not.
Perhaps someone will take the reverse challenge and put this to bed once and for all.
lucasart wrote: With this TwinFish you not only prove my point,
But you never had a point
Engines that will show a 65+% similarity are derived, you don't need the source code, that still stands.
Until the source code is revealed, nothing proves that a closed source engine contains no foreign code.
Sure, never claimed otherwise.
The tool is useless to proof an engine original.
See the difference now?
Sorry, this cuts BOTH ways. It does not PROVE that engines are not original either. It just suggests that further analysis (code inspection) is required. This will NEVER "prove" anything.
Yes, and fingerprint was not considered a proof until 1900 or so.
This is NOT a "fingerprint". Two people walk down the street on different days. They stop at the same places. Coincidence? Do they know each other? Same person wearing two different disguises? Behavior just suggests something connects them. And we are talking behavior of a chess program, not fingerprints or DNA which comes from inside the source code.
What sense are making these analogies? It's about statistics, and no false positives in hundreds of studied engines.
Laskos wrote:What sense are making these analogies? It's about statistics, and no false positives in hundreds of studied engines.
Again talking BS as usual.
How do you know there are no false positives???
Do you have source code of all those hundreds of studied engines?
The only thing you do when you see high score after using BS similarity test is scream clone. You never perform any serious analysis, look at sources, disassemble engines in question.
Your claims are a joke.
Laskos wrote:What sense are making these analogies? It's about statistics, and no false positives in hundreds of studied engines.
Again talking BS as usual.
How do you know there are no false positives???
Do you have source code of all those hundreds of studied engines?
The only thing you do when you see high score after using BS similarity test is scream clone. You never perform any serious analysis, look at sources, disassemble engines in question.
Your claims are a joke.
Several closed source engines that have the highest similarity percentages have been looked at by Mark Watkins, though some in more detail than others. The only one in question may be Fritz 11. Otherwise, there has not been any signs of a false positive. If you have any evidence of a false positive, please share it.
