![]() ![]()
i also agree with some posters that rybka is bad for analysis because it very often wont show the mainline, only the first move of it. #Rybka 5 chess engine plusi dont bother much with the ivanhoes because they still have too many bugs and reliability issues and having to manually set the number of chores is tedious, plus it isnt as strong as firebird or stockfish anyway. ![]() Its only us discovering peter art, it is actually 'ochams razor' not 'oscars razor'! but on the subject of strongest engine, in my testing i am finding stockfish 171ja (32bit at any rate) is now consistently stronger than rybka 3 and about equal with firebird 1.2. And people cannot claim math as to be something of their own, math was there even before mankind. In reality the T-shirts got sold everywhere and others improved the math.īut around the world there where allready people aware of such math even before such T-shirts, since math is something universal you cannt hide. These T-Shirt where not allowed for export as it was a military secret. However joking people made T-Shirts, with the math formulas on it. The math behind it is not allowed as export. Its like the math to find prime numbers for breaking security. decide yourself the most easy logical answer.Īnyway patenting is a problem here i think #Rybka 5 chess engine softwareThen why didnt the rybka team improve it too, why didnt they put the improvents into their own software ?. What wonders me even more in this case lets claim it was a copy. In such a case, i think they simply lost it. Math is something universal, and is accessable to all who study it, i think something like that has happened here, the rybka is bypassed by a team who knew their math a bit better, and they might have been beaten on their own field. I wonder however, if you use math for searh purposes, then how can math be protected by copyrights?. What might be that some search algorythms are patented and might be in use.īut even rybka as far as i know wasnt orignal, all chess engines use common techniques, bitbild search functions etc etc. The only thing i can think of is Rybka is protecting its marketshare, if a free alternative is better then they loose money on it. I dont even believe that such reverse engineering is likely to produce something better. Still left then is understanding the math behind the c+ code, improving the math and compile it into something faster.īut doing that from the bottem, from the assembly code. #Rybka 5 chess engine fullTo improve a program you need to turn it in readable basic or c+ language as how it was written by the original programmer (prefferable full of comments etc), and then you might read his code. Going from such level back to the high math level as required to improve the program seams an unpossible task to me. thats just 2 conversions to much.Īnd then still you have to improve the math, and compile it back into something faster.Īssembly language is the lowest level language, (these days only a few people master it, i did it once). #Rybka 5 chess engine codeSo even if you could turn assembly back into c++ (almost impossible) then still you need a smartbrain to understand the garbage of C++ code and to translate that again to get the math ideas behind it. While chess engines themself are based on math translated down to basic or c++ Without its symbol code (i'm a programmer).Ĭompilers turn a high level language, like basic or c++ into assembly language. I dont think it is possible to decompile rybka, and produce somthing smarter. So whydo they think rybka has been de-compiled ?. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |