The success of engines like Stockfish and Komodo is making me wonder whether the days of *preferring* to empty your wallet to get the latest chess engine is coming to an end. I say this because if Stockfish does topple Rybka later this year as some are speculating then this development could spur a movement for chess enthusiasts to avoid purchasing commercial engines because free ones for download could be seen as being superior to commercially available engines.
In my view I wouldn't see this as being bad for the development of chess engines. If anything it should serve as a warning to commercial vendors that people now have choices in choosing their chess engines and aren't going to be persuaded with the argument that paying for an engine means the engine *is* superior to the "free" ones. So a Stockfish victory over Rybka would be a very important moment in chess engine development. As much as I respect Vas and his Rybka development team for making the most powerful commercial engines to date...I can't root against people who try to make engines that are free and open source alternatives for chess playing on computers.
So I'm rooting for Stockfish to win...or the next open source alternative that can take on Rybka and topple it from it's pedestal.
Philosophical question about competitive engines.
-
LetoAtreides82
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:46 am
Re: Philosophical question about competitive engines.
Had I known that Rybka 4 is only ~30 elo stronger than Rybka 3 on repeated time controls I wouldn't have paid $80 for it. I learned my lesson and will wait for CEGT and CCRL results before considering buying the next Rybka.
-
yanquis1972
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:15 pm
Re: Philosophical question about competitive engines.
i still haven't come around to stockfish, tbh. i was trying but the R4 release has delayed me again. i realize it's incredibly strong, but it's awkward to analyze with.
that being said, of course i am 100% behind the stockfish team, who wouldn't be (other than other authors of course)? best is that their goal is exactly what i'd like it to be, bizarrely enough -- to be enormously strong, & keep adding strength, but to never be the premiere engine (i think their hope is their ideas will translate to commercials/other free engines & thus surpass the latest stockfish). i think this is good not because i believe people should be forced to pay for the best, but because, as i said, stockfish just isn't nearly as simple to use in analysis as rybka 3 was (& hopefully, rybka 4 will be after its patched).
i like komodo quite a bit better, in fact, as it seems to emphasize knowledge more than search & thus is a breeze to analyze with. i really hope it becomes the next engine to join SF & rybka at the top. also great is that the the SP version will always be free (last i heard), so you can either opt out completely of MP or at least try extensively before you buy.
that being said, of course i am 100% behind the stockfish team, who wouldn't be (other than other authors of course)? best is that their goal is exactly what i'd like it to be, bizarrely enough -- to be enormously strong, & keep adding strength, but to never be the premiere engine (i think their hope is their ideas will translate to commercials/other free engines & thus surpass the latest stockfish). i think this is good not because i believe people should be forced to pay for the best, but because, as i said, stockfish just isn't nearly as simple to use in analysis as rybka 3 was (& hopefully, rybka 4 will be after its patched).
i like komodo quite a bit better, in fact, as it seems to emphasize knowledge more than search & thus is a breeze to analyze with. i really hope it becomes the next engine to join SF & rybka at the top. also great is that the the SP version will always be free (last i heard), so you can either opt out completely of MP or at least try extensively before you buy.