chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

  
Rybka (Computer)
Number of games in database: 190
Years covered: 2005 to 2014
Overall record: +120 -26 =34 (76.1%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.
      10 exhibition games, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Sicilian (23) 
    B90 B97 B80 B91 B22
 Ruy Lopez (19) 
    C92 C78 C84 C99 C88
 Sicilian Najdorf (11) 
    B90 B97 B91
 Ruy Lopez, Closed (10) 
    C92 C84 C99 C88 C96
 Petrov (6) 
    C42 C43
 Semi-Slav (5) 
    D43 D46 D45 D44
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (31) 
    B51 B92 B28 B40 B47
 Semi-Slav (8) 
    D47 D43 D44
 French Defense (7) 
    C16 C18 C11 C10 C03
 Sicilian Najdorf (6) 
    B92 B90 B96 B98
 Grunfeld (5) 
    D91 D85 D78 D79 D97
 Sicilian Taimanov (4) 
    B47 B49 B48
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Stockfish vs Rybka, 2009 0-1
   Rybka vs Shredder, 2009 1-0
   Rybka vs Deep Sjeng, 2009 1-0
   Rybka vs Shredder, 2007 1-0
   Rybka vs Pandix, 2010 1-0
   Deep Junior vs Rybka, 2010 0-1
   Rybka vs HIARCS, 2010 1-0
   The King vs Rybka, 2006 0-1
   Deep Gandalf vs Rybka, 2006 0-1
   Rybka vs Diep, 2007 1-0

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   17th World Computer Chess Championship (2009)
   15th World Computer Chess Championship (2007)
   Paderborn Computer Championship (2006)
   6th International CSVN Tournament (2006)
   10th International Computer Tournament (2010)
   Clash of the Computer Titans (2007)
   WCCC 2006 (2006)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   2012/2013/2014 Tournaments by wanabe2000
   Computer - GM games 2003-2007 by biglo
   nTCEC Computer Chess Tournament by shoshonte
   Brilliancies by computers by ryanpd
   Odds games #3 by WhiteRook48
   tea4twonty's favorite games by tea4twonty
   Brilliant games from chess computers by gabriel112000

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Rybka (Computer)
Search Google for Rybka (Computer)


RYBKA (COMPUTER)
(born 2004) Czech Republic

[what is this?]
Rybka (Czech for "little fish") is a computer chess engine designed by IM Vasik G Rajlich. It supports both single processor and SMP systems. Iweta Radziewicz Rajlich is the main tester & Hans van der Zijden is one of her operators. Jeroen Noomen & Jiri Dufek co-authored her opening book. At the WCCC 2006 (2006), Rybka, playing under the name Rajlich, tied for 2nd place with Shredder (Computer), and behind the champion, Junior (Computer). Rybka won the 15th World Computer Chess Championship in Amsterdam, 2007 and the 16th World Computer Chess Championship in Beijing, September 28th to October 5th 2008 with 8.0/9 (+7 -0 =2). During 2009-10, she also became the World Computer Speed Chess Champion.

In 2011, the International Computer Games Association (ICGA) ruled that Raljich had plagiarized two other programs, Crafty and Fruit, disqualified him for life from competing in the World Computer Chess Championship and all other ICGA events, and stripped Rybka of the championship titles it had won in 2006 through 2010.


 page 1 of 8; games 1-25 of 190  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Zappa vs Rybka 0-177 2005 IPCCCE12 Queen's Indian
2. Rybka vs Jonny 1-021 2005 Blitz:110'C69 Ruy Lopez, Exchange, Gligoric Variation, 6.d4
3. Ikarus vs Rybka 0-157 2005 IPCCCB00 Uncommon King's Pawn Opening
4. Rybka vs Argonaut 1-037 2005 IPCCCC68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange
5. Rybka vs Shredder ½-½57 2005 IPCCCB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
6. Rybka vs Gandalf 1-046 2005 ?B12 Caro-Kann Defense
7. Spike vs Rybka 1-069 2005 15. IPCCCE39 Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Pirc Variation
8. Diep vs Rybka 0-149 2006 Paderborn Computer ChampionshipD79 Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O, Main line
9. Rybka vs E Cordova  ½-½74 2006 Copa Entel ,B25 Sicilian, Closed
10. Argonaut vs Rybka 0-142 2006 6th International CSVN TournamentB50 Sicilian
11. PARSOS vs Rybka 0-168 2006 WCCC 2006D47 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
12. Rybka vs FIBChess 1-030 2006 WCCC 2006B80 Sicilian, Scheveningen
13. Rybka vs Fruit 1-049 2006 26th Dutch CCD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
14. Ikarus vs Rybka  0-132 2006 Paderborn Computer ChampionshipD03 Torre Attack (Tartakower Variation)
15. Rybka vs Shredder ½-½67 2006 6th International CSVN TournamentA14 English
16. Ktulu vs Rybka  0-150 2006 Sonnabend_Div.Hardware_30minD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
17. Crafty vs Rybka 0-150 2006 WCCC 2006B22 Sicilian, Alapin
18. Rybka vs Shredder 1-049 2006 Paderborn Computer ChampionshipB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
19. The King vs Rybka 0-131 2006 26th Dutch CCA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
20. O Zambrana vs Rybka  0-134 2006 Copa Entel ,B41 Sicilian, Kan
21. J Hellsten vs Rybka 0-164 2006 Torre ENTEL PCSD36 Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange, Positional line, 6.Qc2
22. Rybka vs M Umansky 1-033 2006 PAL/CSS Freestyle op 3rdA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
23. XINIX vs Rybka 0-174 2006 6th International CSVN TournamentB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
24. ETABETA vs Rybka 0-132 2006 WCCC 2006C42 Petrov Defense
25. Deep Gandalf vs Rybka  0-128 2006 26th Dutch CCB47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
 page 1 of 8; games 1-25 of 190  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Rybka wins | Rybka loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 75 OF 79 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-11-12  chessexp: <Having to prove that you are innocent, is next to impossible. If he presented code that appeared clean, how could he have proved that this was the code he actually used. Without reliable documentation such explanations are empty.>

I really don't think Rajlich can fool Dr Hyatt, not in chess programming.

Jan-11-12  drik: Since Houdini, Critter, Komodo & Stockfish all seem stronger than Junior - why are they unrepresented at ICGA events. The organisation claims to be about studying game-playing AI, but seems intent on ignoring non-commercial programs. Surely they can afford a spare computer or four? Perhaps the real ethos of the organisation is advertising commercial software to the paying public.
Jan-11-12  chessexp: ICGA world chess championship is not free, participants have to cover their own expenses and entry fees. Some authors prefer not to spend money and annual leaves from their works. While Rajlich is a professional chess programmer, most of the others have a real job.

I'm not sure ICGA will welcome Houdini. It has to prove that its originality, ie, no RobboLito code.

Jan-11-12  drik: drik: <Having to prove that you are innocent, is next to impossible.>

chessexp: <I really don't think Rajlich can fool Dr Hyatt, not in chess programming.>

I'm not sure how your comment refers to mine in any way. Proof of innocence is impossible, so presumption of innocence is standard.

As for not being able to fool Dr. Hyatt, perhaps not ... but in a couple of years he did cobble together an engine a class above anything the good doctor managed over an entire lifetime. How galling - no wonder he posts up to 70 times a day on the Rybka forum, to vent spleen.

Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  nimh: Both Rajlichs have elo above 2300, whereas the only Hyatt I found was someone called Doug; no traces of Bob nor Robert there.

Several years ago Rajlich said in an interview that, beore proceeding to create Rybka, he'd read practically every paper on computer chess that had been published.

These factors should be enough to dwarf someone other's lifetime work if he's not too talented and open-minded.

Jan-11-12  DeepFriedLiver: <drik> You agree that Rybka copied code from Crafty and was fundamentally rewritten after the appearance of Fruit (or at least you said "this seems very likely to be true"). You also agree that Rybka at least initially failed to acknowledge Crafty and Fruit as sources. By your own admission then, Rajlich is guilty of plagiarism.

The question now becomes what is the appropriate punishment for plagiarism. You argue that retroactively giving the ICGA awards to Rybka/Fruit would be appropriate (because it would be "the truth").

Plagiarism is a serious offence. At my university, doing it once is enough to get you thrown out of school. I think the ICGA's actions are entirely appropriate.

Jan-11-12  drik: <DeepFriedLiver: <drik> You agree that Rybka copied code from Crafty and was fundamentally rewritten after the appearance of Fruit (or at least you said "this seems very likely to be true").>

Yes.

<You also agree that Rybka at least initially failed to acknowledge Crafty and Fruit as sources.>

Yes.

<By your own admission then, Rajlich is guilty of plagiarism.>

No. If he had made NO ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS of his own then it would be plagiarism. Levy admits that Rajlich made considerable original contributions. The issue was lack of attribution of SOME PART of the code - not all of it. West Side Story is not Shakespeare plagiarised.

<Plagiarism is a serious offence. At my university, doing it once is enough to get you thrown out of school. I think the ICGA's actions are entirely appropriate.>

If you submit work WITH ORIGINAL CONTENT to a technical journal & fail to acknowledge previous work - they will inform you of your omission & insist that you reference previous work. Technical journals will only blacklist you if you attempt to pass off another's work with no original personal contribution.

<You argue that retroactively giving the ICGA awards to Rybka/Fruit would be appropriate (because it would be "the truth").>

That is the other option that the ICGA considered - not my suggestion. And yes if the winner of those tournaments was a Rybka/Fruit hybrid based on the work of Rajlich & LeTouzey - then that is what the record books should show. If "the truth" is unimportant to you then you are free to disagree.

As for people who agree with me -

http://www.top-5000.nl/Rybka.htm
http://www.top-5000.nl/evidence.htm
http://www.top-5000.nl/fruitificati...

Jan-11-12  polarmis: <drik>, I don't think we're in that much disagreement on most things, but going point by point:

<I have seen commercial programming teams with such poor documentation that they were unable to even identify current source code, after key individuals left>

Sure, but Rybka's essentially a one-man operation. As a disorganised person myself I can well understand not having things in order, but not having the odd copy of some Rybka source code for the last 6 years lying around (e.g. attached to an e-mail or so on)!? Seems pretty unlikely.

<If he presented code that appeared clean, how could he have proved that this was the code he actually used.>

I think that's a false issue, really. With Rajlich cooperating and a modicum of good will from both sides it could easily have been overcome.

<Therefore when Rybka was written, it was by a hobby chess programmer.>

Based on this timeline: http://open-chess.org/viewtopic.php... Rybka started in 2003 and it was 2005 that the critical Fruit rewrite took place and it went professional. Anyway, he's been professional for all the years since, and the source code for any Rybkas that took part in the World Championships is relevant.

<To simply pretend that Rybka (& Fruit) never existed, is NOT THE TRUTH.>

No-one's pretending it never existed - they're pointing out it was partly derived from someone else's code and didn't acknowledge the fact. You might as well say it was ridiculous to "pretend Ben Johnson didn't exist" when stripping him of his 100m gold - again, of course he made a huge contribution himself, but he was banned according to the competition's rules.

<How can a shared trophy be a worse outcome than lifetime disqualification?>

The Rybka team might not like that it makes it very clear to everybody what Rybka copied - and as Rybka was a commercial product it would presumably strengthen the case for any royalties to be paid. It would also make it that little bit harder simply to attack the ICGA and represent yourself as the wronged party.

<The truth can only be stated with the agreement of both parties? I always thought that the truth was non-negotiable.>

I guess you'd actually need the agreement of all the other participants in the World Championship to waive the rules. Maybe you're right you can do that without Rybka's agreement.

<Perhaps the real ethos of the organisation is advertising commercial software to the paying public.>

It seems to me that it's a non-commercial association of like-minded individuals pursuing a minority interest. But I've got no contact with it whatsoever, so I'm not the person to ask!

<How galling - no wonder he posts up to 70 times a day on the Rybka forum, to vent spleen.>

You were coming across as pretty objective until that statement. I've been reading through the Rybka forum in the last few days and there you find Hyatt patiently explaining things again and again (making statements that are provable/disprovable) while the rhetoric of his opponents, including various moderators there, often boils down to just shouting "moron", or a hundred variations. I think Riis was misled by that atmosphere into including Hyatt in his piece at ChessBase, not realising how shabby an argument that looks to the rest of the world.

Two other points:

1) On Crafty being much weaker - the copying of Crafty was done on the earlier version of Rybka which was also much weaker than the later versions. In general, though, it's natural that long-established programmers are less likely to completely overhaul their existing program when something better comes along (as it seems Rajlich did with Fruit). Rajlich commented himself at the Rybka forum in the last few days that if he was starting out today he'd just take Stockfish (open source, and as close in strength as Rybka that it makes almost no difference) and work from there.

2) The idea that the 19 people involved in the process who thought Rybka copied Fruit are all bitter twisted individuals is just absurd. Look at the CVs - half of them are university professors and the like, so it's really pretty hard to represent them as miserable failures - although some have tried. I challenge you to read Hyatt's posts on the Rybka forum and those of the people he's replying to (or who reply to him) and come away with the impression that he's the one with psychological problems! (and note, again, what matters is the report and overall process - trying to attack Hyatt is just a sideshow)

Jan-11-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<drkodos:> If Houdini is free what are they hawking here?>

Houdini used to be free to download and non-commercial up to version 1.5a. This latest version (Houdini 2.0) is relatively new (released Sep-2011) and is the first version for which they are charging money for download and use.

Jan-11-12  drkodos: @ AylerKupp: ty :-)
Jan-11-12  drik: <chessexp: ICGA world chess championship is not free, participants have to cover their own expenses and entry fees.>

Then it's an ICGA championship - not an ICGA WORLD championship. Championships normally have prize money & appearance fees, rather than entry fees. Why do the programmers have to be there at all? Why not just send the code? Assuming that the ICGA has broadband.

The ICGA pockets fees from professional programmers in order to advertise their wares to the general public. If one engine keeps winning, it threatens the business model because the other entrants will be less willing to pay just to be thrashed in public.

<I'm not sure ICGA will welcome Houdini. It has to prove that its originality, ie, no RobboLito code.>

It may have to - Houdart may make Houdini 2.0 commercial & he might be willing to pay. As for having to PROVE INNOCENCE ... I guess you & I are always going to differ on the nature of justice. Innocence cannot be proven - you cannot prove a negative. Look up Russell's teapot - inability to disprove does not prove.

Jan-11-12  Tomlinsky: For those interested, a little light reading. Around 100 lines of code copied verbatim from Crafty that was practically redundant before Rajlich even started on Rybka isn't a bad place to start making a claim of infraction...

http://open-chess.org/download/file...

Interesting how Rajlich or Chessbase themselves aren't actively defending their own corner, isn't it?

Jan-11-12  drik: <but not having the odd copy of some Rybka source code for the last 6 years lying around (e.g. attached to an e-mail or so on)!? Seems pretty unlikely.>

Pretty unlikely ... is pretty weak given the magnitude of the charges. I've seen two mindsets in such work. One stores everything - the other takes pleasure in eliminating the obsolete. I'm the latter - if I'm convinced that code has been superseded, I take pleasure in deleting it. I've never thought why ... but psychologically it's a bit like kicking away a crutch - it emphasizes the fact that I've moved on & don't need it any more. But I can see why this mindset would seem odd to the 'keep everything' type.

<I think that's a false issue, really. With Rajlich cooperating and a modicum of good will from both sides it could easily have been overcome.>

A man is being asked to prove his innocence - when he has stated that he does not have the necessary data. Since that statement was not taken in good faith, what were the chances of the rest of the inquisition taking place in good faith?

<To simply pretend that Rybka (& Fruit) never existed, is NOT THE TRUTH.>

<No-one's pretending it never existed - they're pointing out it was partly derived from someone else's code and didn't acknowledge the fact.>

The ICGA will pointedly erase Rybka from their 'history' a la comrade Stalin, without adding Fruit. Doing a disservice to both Rajlich & LeTouzey ... but pleasing long paying customers from Junior, Shredder & Hiarcs.

<"pretend Ben Johnson didn't exist">

Plagiarism & drug abuse are scarcely comparable. West Side story is not Romeo & Juliet ... Clueless is not Emma ... Ten Thing I Hate About You is not the Taming of the Shrew. The inspiration is obvious - but Shakespeare & Austen would get no share of the gross if they were alive today.

Another relevant example is the use of sampling in music. Led Zeppelin's "When the Levee Breaks" was sampled by everyone from Mike Oldfield, to Nine Inch Nails - yet the permission & licensing are controversial, varying from country to country. Should musicians who sample without attribution also be banned for life?

<<How can a shared trophy be a worse outcome than lifetime disqualification?>

The Rybka team might not like that it makes it very clear to everybody what Rybka copied ... strengthen the case for any royalties to be paid ... harder simply to attack the ICGA>

Sharing credit makes copying clearer than outright disqualification & banning for LIFE. Really? You're going to stick with that position?

As for making the ICGA harder to attack, why would that be a problem for the ICGA?

Jan-11-12  drik: <<How galling - no wonder he posts up to 70 times a day on the Rybka forum, to vent spleen.>

You were coming across as pretty objective until that statement.>

It's sarcasm. I stated that 'proof of innocence' was impossible & the response was that Hyatt was too smart for Rajlich to fool. If hero-worship is going to trump logic ... I thought I'd have a dig at it!

Jan-11-12  polarmis: <drik>, the panel accepted Rajlich's lack of cooperation and set about analysing Rybka and Fruit using standard procedures for situations where you only have the source code for one program. He never said he couldn't defend himself but simply chose not to. My views on the likelihood of his not having any source code are by the by :)

And just to add - you can mock the concept of copyrighting computer software, but the whole process was started by Rajlich claiming another program was a clone of Rybka - and it turning out that program was almost a clone of Fruit. You can't have it both ways.

Jan-12-12  nok: West Side Story did neither of 1) quoting Shakespeare 2) entering a competition where quotes must be attributed.
Jan-12-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  mrbasso: This is not a court case. "In dubio pro reo" does not apply here.
Jan-12-12  amateur05: <Rajlich claiming another program was a clone of Rybka - and it turning out that program was almost a clone of Fruit. You can't have it both ways.> I totally agree with you. The whole campaign by chessbase & co to make the Rybka team look like victims is sickening and dishonest. Their only concern has always been profit, profit and profit, not justice!
Jan-12-12  DeepFriedLiver: <drik> Your definition of plagiarism is quite strict. By your definition, Robbolito did not plagiarize Rybka because the programmers made at least some original contribution.
Jan-12-12  drik: <polarmis: <drik>, the panel accepted Rajlich's lack of cooperation and set about analysing Rybka and Fruit using standard procedures for situations where you only have the source code for one program.>

...there are standard procedures for comparing the source code of chess programs? Have they been applied to all the contestants in ICGA events ... or only the inconveniently successful ones?

<And just to add - you can mock the concept of copyrighting computer software,>

Mocking? By pointing out the issues re Clueless v Emma ... or the issues related to 'sampling' music. This is not mockery - just statement that plagiarism has infinite shades of grey, which the law sees differently in almost every country. If you prefer to see the world as chessboard - black & white - that is your issue.

<polarmis: & amateur05: but the whole process was started by Rajlich claiming another program was a clone of Rybka - and it turning out that program was almost a clone of Fruit.>

Was the other program 100 Elo stronger than Rybka? If not then what ORIGINAL contribution did it have? I'm not claiming that Rajlich did NOT use ideas from Fruit - the key is how & how much. If you change Romeo & Juliet into West Side Story; at least the music is an original artistic contribution. If you just change the names to Robert & Julie ... that just isn't enough.

<You can't have it both ways.>

I don't think I am. Rajlich's judgement of what constitutes SUFFICIENT original contribution may differ from yours & Levy's. But it is undeniable that he made one, which may not be the case for the engine he objected. It all comes down to shades of grey ...

As for having it both ways - how about having it inside out? I notice you are quietly dropping the idea that sharing a prize is a greater embarrassment than being disqualified & banned for life. I'm still trying to work out what planet that idea came from!

Jan-12-12  drik: <nok: West Side Story did neither of 1) quoting Shakespeare 2) entering a competition where quotes must be attributed.>

...& Verdi's Otello? Did it become original by missing out the 'h'? As for quotes, if you change the word order to set it to music - what then? The song Memory from Cats! is a mix of lyrics T.S. Eliot's "Preludes" and "Rhapsody on a Windy Night" & music from Puccini & Ravel. Now Eliot is referenced as the author of 'Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats' - but the great poems that the songs 'borrow' from are not referenced. From the attribution you would assume that the characters were Eliot's, but the beautiful imagery the work of Tim Rice - rather than Eliot's too. Puccini & Ravel are not credited either; & also being dead are unlikely to sue.

Jan-12-12  drik: <DeepFriedLiver: <drik> Your definition of plagiarism is quite strict.>

It is not my definition, plagiarism is not black & white. It has many shades of grey, else it would not be so contentious. Clueless is clearly an adaptation of Emma - but the translation from early 19th to late 20th century is so full of humour & invention that most people would accept that it had sufficient originality in its own right. I guess some would not.

A quote from playwright Wilson Mizner - "If you copy from one author, it's plagiarism. If you copy from two, it's research."

Jan-12-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: I'm having fun imaging the defense of artistic parody transplanted to the realm of software code.
Jan-13-12  nok: <Puccini & Ravel are not credited either; & also being dead are unlikely to sue.>

But Dixon who was alive, did sue Zeppelin. Anyway, no one is suing here (nor Letouzey nor the FSF). A td is excluding one competitor for disregarding tourn regulations, that's all.

Jan-13-12  polarmis: <...there are standard procedures for comparing the source code of chess programs? Have they been applied to all the contestants in ICGA events ... or only the inconveniently successful ones?>

As I understand it the ICGA investigates whenever someone makes a complaint - and Rajlich himself has been involved in "disciplinary procedures". I said for comparing programs by the way, not just chess programs.

<Was the other program 100 Elo stronger than Rybka? If not then what ORIGINAL contribution did it have?>

Don't know, but Fruit was perhaps 600 points stronger than Rybka before Rajlich used it.

<I notice you are quietly dropping the idea that sharing a prize is a greater embarrassment than being disqualified & banned for life.>

No, my guess is the Rybka team would prefer just to be disqualified rather than suffer the humiliation of a joint prize. Remember all that really matters here for them is the commercial situation, and dramatic as a "lifetime ban" sounds it makes little difference. Anyway, I might well be wrong - feel free to ask them. Rajlich is answering questions here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybka...

If you read that you can see that essentially Rajlich is admitting copying Fruit, and his only (implied) defence seems to be that it wasn't just copying and pasting. It couldn't be, as the board was represented in a different way in Rybka, but that's just a technical difference. Anyway, the ICGA rule is about the code being "derivative", so there doesn't appear to be any need for it to be copy and pasted.

You're talking about "original contribution", but I don't see how tuning and making someone else's code more efficient stops the code being derivative.

Just on the literary comparisons - this isn't a copyright issue at the moment (just about the ICGA rule) and yes, as others have mentioned, it's a bit odd that you're ignoring how literary copyright works - i.e. it ends after a certain period of time.

The wronged party here is, in all likelihood, Fabien Letouzey - his work was used in contravention of the licencing agreement and Rajlich took all the plaudits. It's hard to imagine Rajlich didn't realise what he was doing is wrong given he manipulated the search depth in Rybka so the engine looked as though it was slow and "intelligent" (his being an IM helped with that myth), when in fact it was quick and simple/efficient, just like Fruit. If he hadn't altered the depth it's very possible the copying would have been spotted sooner.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 79)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 75 OF 79 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies