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 B43 B91
 Ruy Lopez (19) 
    C78 C92 C99 C68 C95
 Sicilian Najdorf (11) 
    B90 B97 B91
 Ruy Lopez, Closed (9) 
    C92 C99 C95 C88 C96
 Petrov (6) 
    C42 C43
 Semi-Slav (5) 
    D43 D44 D45 D46
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (31) 
    B51 B92 B28 B47 B40
 Semi-Slav (8) 
    D47 D43 D44
 French Defense (7) 
    C16 C03 C18 C11 C10
 Sicilian Najdorf (6) 
    B92 B96 B90 B98
 Grunfeld (5) 
    D91 D85 D78 D97 D79
 Sicilian Taimanov (4) 
    B47 B48 B49
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Stockfish vs Rybka, 2009 0-1
   Rybka vs Shredder, 2009 1-0
   Rybka vs Shredder, 2007 1-0
   Rybka vs Deep Sjeng, 2009 1-0
   Rybka vs Houdini, 2013 1-0
   The King vs Rybka, 2006 0-1
   Deep Junior vs Rybka, 2010 0-1
   Rybka vs Pandix, 2010 1-0
   Deep Gandalf vs Rybka, 2006 0-1
   Rybka vs Nakamura, 2007 1/2-1/2

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

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Computer - GM games 2003-2007 by biglo
   nTCEC Computer Chess Tournament by shoshonte
   Brilliancies by computers by ryanpd
   International Pad. computer chess championship by gauer
   Brilliant games from chess computers by gabriel112000
   Odds games #3 by WhiteRook48
   tea4twonty's favorite games by tea4twonty

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. Rybka vs Jonny 1-021 2005 Blitz:110'C69 Ruy Lopez, Exchange, Gligoric Variation, 6.d4
2. Ikarus vs Rybka 0-157 2005 IPCCCB00 Uncommon King's Pawn Opening
3. Rybka vs Argonaut 1-037 2005 IPCCCC68 Ruy Lopez, Exchange
4. Rybka vs Shredder ½-½57 2005 IPCCCB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
5. Rybka vs Gandalf 1-046 2005 ?B12 Caro-Kann Defense
6. Spike vs Rybka 1-069 2005 15. IPCCCE39 Nimzo-Indian, Classical, Pirc Variation
7. Zappa vs Rybka 0-177 2005 IPCCCE12 Queen's Indian
8. Rybka vs Shredder 1-049 2006 Paderborn Computer ChampionshipB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
9. J Hellsten vs Rybka 0-164 2006 Torre ENTEL PCSD36 Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange, Positional line, 6.Qc2
10. The King vs Rybka 0-131 2006 26th Dutch CCA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
11. O Zambrana vs Rybka  0-134 2006 Copa Entel ,B41 Sicilian, Kan
12. XINIX vs Rybka 0-174 2006 6th International CSVN TournamentB51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack
13. Rybka vs M Umansky 1-033 2006 PAL/CSS Freestyle op 3rdA29 English, Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto
14. ETABETA vs Rybka 0-132 2006 WCCC 2006C42 Petrov Defense
15. Deep Gandalf vs Rybka  0-128 2006 26th Dutch CCB47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
16. Rybka vs Deep Sjeng 1-057 2006 6th International CSVN TournamentB80 Sicilian, Scheveningen
17. Rybka vs Spike ½-½72 2006 Paderborn Computer ChampionshipB54 Sicilian
18. J Alvarez Nunez vs Rybka  0-144 2006 Copa Entel ,C85 Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation Doubly Deferred (DERLD)
19. Rybka vs Zappa ½-½55 2006 WCCC 2006D46 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
20. Rybka vs Shredder 1-060 2006 60m + 15s, ratedD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
21. Deep Gandalf vs Rybka 0-146 2006 Paderborn Computer ChampionshipB70 Sicilian, Dragon Variation
22. Leitao vs Rybka ½-½43 2006 Torre ENTEL PCSD37 Queen's Gambit Declined
23. Rybka vs Deep Sjeng 1-059 2006 26th Dutch CCC42 Petrov Defense
24. Rybka vs E Arancibia  1-047 2006 Copa Entel ,B07 Pirc
25. Rybka vs The Baron 1-035 2006 6th International CSVN TournamentB33 Sicilian
 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 79 OF 79 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jan-20-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.

http://www.csvn.nl/index.php?option...

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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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.>

2012

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)[33]

[edit] 2013
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Patriots (Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)[33]

[edit] TBA
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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: Humans helping computers to cheat at chess.
Mar-14-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  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
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: <offramp: Humans helping computers to cheat at chess.>

Lol !

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!?
Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 79)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 79 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 members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. Don't post personal information of members.
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 2001-2015, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies