POLL: Whether Rybka Is An Original Work?

[Mincho Georgiev]

I found it. My theme was "polyethylene" and for some reason it cannot handle polls.

[Dr. Ivannik]

This is a game I would hope everyone will look at to improve one's skill in chess.

Several computer chess fans aren't interested in human chess.

I think I understand then that they are not really chess players. Just people bickering and bitching over where or what a chess engine is??? WOW

[Charles]

This is a game I would hope everyone will look at to improve one's skill in chess.

Several computer chess fans aren't interested in human chess.

I think I understand then that they are not really chess players. Just people bickering and bitching over where or what a chess engine is??? WOW

Exactly ...

And yes Rybka is an original work ...Try making fruit as good as rybka ....meanwhile .... the oh so very original ippolit evaluates quite similar to rybka 3 and is about equal or weaker than a buggy not very well tuned Rybka 4 ..

[Roger Brown]

Exactly ...

And yes Rybka is an original work ...

Hello Charles,

Could you please define original? How do you account for the parts in it that have been identified as being parts of other programs (Rybka 1)?

Try making fruit as good as rybka ....

This seems disrespectful of the efforts of other programmers. Admire Rybka if you wish but why is this illogical statement necessary to support your point? For your information, Fruit is a wonderful engine and a remarkable story in terms of its development. It is every bit as good as Rybka. I assume you meant as strong as Rybka which is another thing entirely. Strength is but one criteria that makes a chess engine "good" and it is not even the primary one in my opinion. Incidentally, remove Fruit and use the name of any other engine - Crafty, Gaviota etc. What is the point? That a clone (I am not calling any engine a clone!) cannot be significantly stronger/weaker than its antecedents?

meanwhile .... the oh so very original ippolit evaluates quite similar to rybka 3

I understand and get the sarcasm. I do. However, do you have proof for this statement?

and is about equal or weaker than a buggy not very well tuned Rybka 4 ..

Do you have proof for the strength argument in this statement?

It seems that you are saying that Rybka 4 is buggy and not very well tuned.



That is a serious claim for a commercial product which is not given away as Ippo was. Besides, if it is at the level of Rybka 4 (buggy and ill-tuned as it is to use your words), isn't by definition the strongest thing around?

Later.

[Roger Brown]

This is a game I would hope everyone will look at to improve one's skill in chess.

Several computer chess fans aren't interested in human chess.

I think I understand then that they are not really chess players. Just people bickering and bitching over where or what a chess engine is??? WOW

Hello Dr. Ivannik,

The real WOW part of it all is that you did not investigate the nature of the forum you sought to join before doing so.

Later.

Ps. Incidentally, several computer chess fans are also interested in human chess. It simply is a matter of finding the appropriate thread/sub-forum to express that interest. Instead of that you set out to impose your interest and views on us all. And end up alienating those who might be most interested in what you have to say.

[Dr. Ivannik]

This is a game I would hope everyone will look at to improve one's skill in chess.

Several computer chess fans aren't interested in human chess.

I think I understand then that they are not really chess players. Just people bickering and bitching over where or what a chess engine is??? WOW

Hello Dr. Ivannik,

The real WOW part of it all is that you did not investigate the nature of the forum you sought to join before doing so.

Later.

Ps. Incidentally, several computer chess fans are also interested in human chess. It simply is a matter of finding the appropriate thread/sub-forum to express that interest. Instead of that you set out to impose your interest and views on us all. And end up alienating those who might be most interested in what you have to say.

WOW REALLY!!! What is human chess. Never heard the terminology.
I have played tournament chess for 40 years and have never known anyone who was interested in computer chess who wasn't a chess player as the program (engine) is only a tool to be used???? Who are you and do you play chess. If not post back and admit your not a tournament player but your on a chess site writing dribble about a game you don't play. I am waiting for your admission.

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik

[Roger Brown]

WOW REALLY!!! What is human chess. Never heard the terminology.
I have played tournament chess for 40 years and have never known anyone who was interested in computer chess who wasn't a chess player as the program (engine) is only a tool to be used???? Who are you and do you play chess. If not post back and admit your not a tournament player but your on a chess site writing dribble about a game you don't play. I am waiting for your admission.

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik

Let us try this again.

Human chess meaning the game of chess as played by humans as against computerchess which is the game of chess played by computers.

Same rules but - to take one difference - computerchess allows for hours and hours of non-stop play as in establishing a ratings position. A chess engine can be used for a variety of things. Your usage is but one of these. As I said before, imposing your usage and definition is not the way to go but clearly you have a sufficiently high enough estimation of your thought processes that your way is the only/best way.

There are a number of programmers who are fair chess players. There are also a number who I have spoken with who are easily outclassed by their engines. Outstanding tournament ability and outstanding computer chess abilities are not correlated at all.

Who am I? Difficult to answer that. Who are you to ask?

I am not a tournament player at all. Worse yet, I have no intention of ever playing in a tournament. That is my sorry admission. I was not aware that the only categories which existed were tournament or non-player. Again, that is how you think and I for one am not about to interrupt your view of the world.

Writing dribble....well I guess that you are free to call it what you will but your description perhaps says more about you than me. I cannot imagine that a tournament player of 40 years would feel the need to assert their superiority by stepping on others but that is how some persons stand tall I guess.

Let me leave you to it sir.

Later.

[Dr. Ivannik]

WOW REALLY!!! What is human chess. Never heard the terminology.
I have played tournament chess for 40 years and have never known anyone who was interested in computer chess who wasn't a chess player as the program (engine) is only a tool to be used???? Who are you and do you play chess. If not post back and admit your not a tournament player but your on a chess site writing dribble about a game you don't play. I am waiting for your admission.

Thank you

Dr. Ivannik

Let us try this again.

Human chess meaning the game of chess as played by humans as against computerchess which is the game of chess played by computers.

Same rules but - to take one difference - computerchess allows for hours and hours of non-stop play as in establishing a ratings position. A chess engine can be used for a variety of things. Your usage is but one of these. As I said before, imposing your usage and definition is not the way to go but clearly you have a sufficiently high enough estimation of your thought processes that your way is the only/best way.

There are a number of programmers who are fair chess players. There are also a number who I have spoken with who are easily outclassed by their engines. Outstanding tournament ability and outstanding computer chess abilities are not correlated at all.

Who am I? Difficult to answer that. Who are you to ask?

I am not a tournament player at all. Worse yet, I have no intention of ever playing in a tournament. That is my sorry admission. I was not aware that the only categories which existed were tournament or non-player. Again, that is how you think and I for one am not about to interrupt your view of the world.

Writing dribble....well I guess that you are free to call it what you will but your description perhaps says more about you than me. I cannot imagine that a tournament player of 40 years would feel the need to assert their superiority by stepping on others but that is how some persons stand tall I guess.

Let me leave you to it sir.

Later.

It's possible many years of play have made me over competitive and may be looking at it only from a one sidedness.
I apologize if I have overstepped my boundries.Thank you for this clarification.

Dr. Ivannik

[Charles]

Exactly ...

And yes Rybka is an original work ...

Hello Charles,

Could you please define original? How do you account for the parts in it that have been identified as being parts of other programs (Rybka 1)?

]Vas has to account for it not me. However, other programmers have disputed this. My definition of original is the amount of innovation contained in the program. I suspect that Vas studeied fruit and others as he said and built his engine from it. Maybe he copied something in the process. and so Rybka is not original. However, he innovated by making his engine considerably stronger. So I feel the engine has considerable VALUE for the enduser.

Try making fruit as good as rybka ....

This seems disrespectful of the efforts of other programmers. Admire Rybka if you wish but why is this illogical statement necessary to support your point? For your information, Fruit is a wonderful engine and a remarkable story in terms of its development. It is every bit as good as Rybka. I assume you meant as strong as Rybka which is another thing entirely. Strength is but one criteria that makes a chess engine "good" and it is not even the primary one in my opinion. Incidentally, remove Fruit and use the name of any other engine - Crafty, Gaviota etc. What is the point? That a clone (I am not calling any engine a clone!) cannot be significantly stronger/weaker than its antecedents?

The amount of originality in rybka makes it a useful product.. Btw.. no one would buy rybka if it was same strength of fruit. ---Rybka's innovation is in its considerable strength.

meanwhile .... the oh so very original ippolit evaluates quite similar to rybka 3

I understand and get the sarcasm. I do. However, do you have proof for this statement?

This is established with the "clone testing" in talkchess. It can show (not necessarily conclusively) which engines are close in evaluation. Also the latest report by BB shows clearly that Ippolit is not a copy and paste but does show that there are a lot of similarities.
And the innovation is ippolit is strenght in blitz that almost vanishes at long time controls --- I have yet to see enough LTC games showing dominance over Rybka 3!

and is about equal or weaker than a buggy not very well tuned Rybka 4 ..

Do you have proof for the strength argument in this statement?

It seems that you are saying that Rybka 4 is buggy and not very well tuned.



That is a serious claim for a commercial product which is not given away as Ippo was. Besides, if it is at the level of Rybka 4 (buggy and ill-tuned as it is to use your words), isn't by definition the strongest thing around?

Later.

Rybka 4 - adjusting time control factors is much stronger. and is equal or better than ivanhoe. However, houdini might be stronger ...My tests show that.



Anyway, if Rybka is NOT original, then neither is ippolit by the same standards.

[Peter C]

Anyway, if Rybka is NOT original, then neither is ippolit by the same standards.

Could you elaborate? Rybka is derived from Fruit, Ippolit isn't derived from anything.

Peter