< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 79 OF 79 ·
|Jan-20-12|| ||AylerKupp: <nok> It all depends on the interpretation of "original work". If taken literally I don't see how having sources allows one to claim that their work was original. I know that this is just semantics but I think that the ICGA needs to clarify it. And under the current tournament rules I don't think that the price of admission to an ICGA tournament is worth the publicity, particularly given the meaninglessness of the title "World Computer Chess Champion" in view of the lack of participation by the top engines. Of course, that's once again only my opinion, each developer must make their own choices. But by the lack of participation in the tournament by the top engines, I think that they have.|
|Jan-21-12|| ||drik: <Seriously, I don't see the fixation with one programmer out of many>|
Not just one programmer...the Computer Chess Association of the Netherlands agree with him.
If the ICGA cannot take the trouble to even confer with a national organisation - then it suggests to me that little effort has been made to achieve a broad consensus.
<At a glance I'm not sure you do.>
I can't find the document again, if you have the link please repost it. I'd be surprised if my memory was that far off. One guy definitely mentioned the shared award (that's where I picked up on it). A couple of guys highlighted doubts up to Rybka 2.3.2, but said nothing further. Mark Uniacke's comment stuck in my mind, because it amounted to - 'if the initial versions are derivative, then all subsequent versions are derivative'.
For me, the strongest possible action compatible with neutrality; would be to disqualify Rybka 2007, 2008 & 2009. Though I'd still be pretty doubtful about that. To disqualify V3 without examination, is unacceptable given that Kaufman tuned the evaluation function then & Monte-Carlo play-outs were added to the search suite.
<Rules are rules ...>
... which apply to everybody, not just the accused. Since 'total' originality is such an issue - every competitor should submit their code, to ensure that it complies. Failure to win is no proof of innocence.
|Jan-21-12|| ||polarmis: <Not just one programmer...the Computer Chess Association of the Netherlands agree with him.>|
Ed Schroeder is from the Netherlands, which I guess isn't an unrelated factor.
<If the ICGA cannot take the trouble to even confer with a national organisation - then it suggests to me that little effort has been made to achieve a broad consensus.>
Again, their decision was taken after the verdict was announced, so obviously couldn't have affected the verdict.
By the way, the more I read about Schroeder the more it just seems a purely emotional response. One of the key items in his decision to defend Rajlich was a single tabloid story published after the verdict was announced: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/867998-... Schroeder and various other Rajlich supporters jump to the obviously false conclusion that it must have been planted by the ICGA, when anyone familiar with the British tabloids would recognise the style instantly. Schroeder should be annoyed with them (and I agree, they're reprehensible), not the ICGA.
Here's the ICGA panel's report (a pdf file): http://chessprogramming.wikispaces....
|Jan-26-12|| ||timhortons: btw, i hope somebody answer my question.
why company like microsoft and ibm not interested develop a strong software like rybka or maybe a super more monster software more stronger than this?
why the corporate giants are not involve in development of this? why small guys like rajlich are into it?
|Jan-26-12|| ||Kinghunt: <why company like microsoft and ibm not interested develop a strong software like rybka or maybe a super more monster software more stronger than this?|
why the corporate giants are not involve in development of this? why small guys like rajlich are into it?>
It's a small niche. Big corporations have no reason to focus on chess. They won't earn a lot from sales, and current programs are already well beyond the point of being able to fight against humans in publicity matches. There's simply nothing in computer chess for Microsoft or IBM.
|Jan-26-12|| ||timhortons: thanks king hunt, so thats the reason.
btw ubisoft at one point is involved in the development of chessmaster software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft ubisoft is a fairly size multinational company from quebec involve in developing gaming software.
I never heard them making a more stronger chess master software lately, maybe its not worth their time, maybe the company decided to produce gaming software for ps3.
|Jan-26-12|| ||timhortons: sorry, its not maybe, reading from wike entry, their more on ps3 and xbox,<right, why spend precious time making chess software? for a company this big? its not worth their time.>|
Brothers in Arms: Furious 4 (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows)
Far Cry 3 (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows)
I Am Alive (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier (Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Microsoft Windows)
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Online (Microsoft Windows, Wii U)
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Retribution (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows)
Prince of Persia 2: Prodigy (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii U)
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Patriots (Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)
Tom Clancy's EndWar 2 (TBA)
Beyond Good & Evil 2 (TBA)
Killer Freaks from Outer Space (Wii U)
|Jan-26-12|| ||benjinathan: When there is crazy strong chess software available for free, it is difficult to see why any company makes chess software anymore.|
|Feb-02-12|| ||AylerKupp: <timhortons> I would think that the most likely answer is that they don't see it as a big money maker. And chess programs are not that large or complicated. For example, the latest Stockfish 2.2.2 consists of only 42 files and 8107 source lines of code (SLOC). A "small guy" can do it much more efficiently. To put in perspective, in 2001 Windows XP has been estimated (no accurate numbers apparently exist) to consist of 35-50 million (SLOC) and Windows 7 should be much larger, maybe 60 million. That's why you need corporate giants.|
Of course, the number of <useful> SLOC in Windows 7 is much, much smaller. :-)
|Feb-02-12|| ||AylerKupp: I think that Vasik Rajlich better get that Rybka 5 out quickly. In the latest CCRL 40/40 rankings (Jan-29-12) Rybka 4.1 has dropped to #3 behind the new Stockfish 2.2.2. And Critter 1.2 is only 7 ELO points behind, with the newly released Critter 1.4 probably stronger. Single processor Komodo 4 is 40 ELO points behind Rybka 4.1 with a new SMP version coning out "soon". I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 2 months Rybka 4.1 has dropped to #5 in the CCRL 40/40 rankings.|
Then again, since he likely won't be competing in any ICGA tournaments in the near future, he should have extra time in his hands.
|Jul-10-13|| ||perfidious: <DrMAL: <Everett:>....Although I am not sure such a cynical approach to using computers as a tool is usually the case. I can see how a lot of lower level players could just play out games with an engine on and, when the engine evaluates a move played as bad, go spouting off how dumb that player was and/or how smart they are because blah blah blah...pity. No doubt this site and others have plenty of such people, even worse it seems, there are people on here (and elsewhere) who go around with some attitude of trying to put down others, especially those higher level than them who kibitz....>|
While you and I have had our differences-strong ones, I might add-can't agree more with you on this.
There are, fortunately, enough posters such as <Everett> who are open to ideas which involve more effort than simply sitting before the silicon monstrosity and letting it crunch out moves <ad infinitum>.
|Jul-04-14|| ||mrandersson: Long live rybka In its day it was such a good engine. I think most people will say rybka 3 was a gold point in computer chess it was quite ahead of the field at the time and even now its still a good engine to use.|
Just most engines now iv found are quite anti rybka and know how it plays and what its problems are etc.
|Jul-04-14|| ||Everett: <perfidious> dr. Mal was ones of the losers on this site who would judge an entire game on how well it matched up with best computer play. His response to my post, years ago at this point, is more crap out of the toilet.|
Don't miss him, though he remains on ignore just in case.
|Mar-13-15|| ||Conrad93: <Long live rybka In its day it was such a good engine. I think most people will say rybka 3 was a gold point in computer chess it was quite ahead of the field at the time and even now its still a good engine to use.>|
I don't care about the rating hype. I use Rybka 4 far more than any other engine. I think Stockfish 5 is less dynamic, and when I paired the two against one another in a match, Rybka won almost every game.
|Mar-13-15|| ||N0B0DY: You think?|
|Mar-13-15|| ||Conrad93: Will they ever release Rybka 5?|
|Mar-13-15|| ||N0B0DY: Not on my watch.|
|Mar-14-15|| ||offramp: Humans helping computers to cheat at chess.|
|Mar-14-15|| ||Kinghunt: <I use Rybka 4 far more than any other engine. I think Stockfish 5 is less dynamic, and when I paired the two against one another in a match, Rybka won almost every game.>|
That is exceedingly strange. On the CCRL rating list tests, Stockfish 6 defeated Rybka 4 62-16. Stockfish 5 had a slightly less lopsided score of 77-40 against Rybka 4. The rating lists exist for a reason - Stockfish is simply a class above Rybka.
|Mar-14-15|| ||Conrad93: It could just be my hardware. I'm sure they use far more powerful computers for computer tournaments.|
|Mar-14-15|| ||Kinghunt: Whatever hardware they were using, Rybka and Stockfish were running on equal hardware. The only way Rybka could consistently beat Stockfish in your tests is if you're giving unequal time or computational resources (aka, running 1 core vs 4 cores).|
|Mar-14-15|| ||mrandersson: To be fair rybka has been sat in the dark now since at least 2010. Note stockfish gets more updates and has a army size force working around the clock.|
In truth what ever engine you use for your own games you are going to find help and ideas on were you went wrong or better is lines.
Even my old shredder still gives me help and look what happened to that engine.
|Mar-14-15|| ||moronovich: <offramp: Humans helping computers to cheat at chess.>|
|Mar-15-15|| ||Conrad93: Why does Stockfish 5 go from 0.88- to 0.00, to even 0.60 in this position in a span of only one move?|
click for larger view
If I don't capture the pawn, it says black has a slight advantage, but the minute I capture it, the evulation changes from 0.12- to 0.47 .
I just don't get it.
Then it recommends playing 8. Be3, and a few moves later black has a lost position.
|Mar-15-15|| ||Conrad93: The move order is 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Qb6 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Be2 Nh6 7. Bxh6!?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 79 OF 79 ·