> There is a fallacy in your thinking. If I am happy with my present hardware, and I am, then subscribing to the remote version represents 100% incremental cost to me.
Obviously, there will be some sort of transition period. It's like Model-T customers who owned horses. Maybe some of them even waited for their horses to get old before upgrading.
> At the end of which, I have nothing of tangible value that I can point to and say "that's mine".
Yes, I realize this. When remote email (like yahoo, gmail, etc) first started to take hold, people also had this uneasy sense about not "having" their email on their computer. It will pass.
> It simply does not work for me and never could. But, never mind that, I still want accuracy in those things I can afford.
As you just said above, it's not about affording, it's about physically owning. Anyway, accuracy was also important for Rybka 4 and will remain important for Rybka 5, you don't have to worry that I'll just turn it into a toy.
Perhaps if anything someone recorded on the site they could use at any date even after their membership expired, it would make people like me consider it. And perhaps adding something to sweeten it like giving everyone who signs up permanent access to full 6-man tables and the use of the area to record games and analysis so long as the server stays up. I can see a lot of people trying the service for 6 months provided they can continue to access their findings, games and whatnot. And I suspect if it is done well, many people will stay as paying members. And it might also be good to allow former members the possibility to pay for one position to be checked to some depth for a fixed amount without any additional commitment.
i like a number of others will never use cloud.i like to believe my hardware upgrades will counteract any temp improvements in Rybka.of course this costs a lot of bread but this is part of the hobby.no matter how strong the cloud is,i do not believe it will overule big hardware armed with a good program(R4 in this case) and human imaginination.you cannot let the cloud get to far ahead as the opposition is catching up fast.in a few months i would love to play at corr time controls against your cloud.maybe someone will give me a few games.maybe even yourself,if you wish to prove your case.i will be first to apologise if i am wrong,but would be prepared to play for a reasonable amount of money to pay for your time if you are correct.
>instead of assembling some complex hardware in your home as is currently the case.
Assembling hardware isn't really complex if you can follow instructions and have time to read, even a teenager can do it nowadays. And it is actually much cheaper since you can choose your hardware depending on your needs, eg. If you are an engineroom player probably a overclockable i7 is best suited but if you are a corr player probably a farm of cheap AMD 4-6 cores are probably the best choice. Plus it isn't hard to sell the hardware once you don't want it anymore.
This reminds me of a problem that a Japanese condom maker was having twenty five years ago. They sold their condoms in three sizes, small, medium, and large, but nobody wanted to buy small condoms, so there were frequent failures. This problem was solved by renaming the categories: large, gigantic, and gargantuan. Mission accomplished!
>Decades - I'll just set it up and let it roll.
Does that mean you expect the state of computer chess 10 years from now the same as today? And what about the depreciation rate of your remote service, how many years do you expect it to be ahead in terms of accuracy and strength compared to the best available public engine?
> does she steer winning middle or late middlegames into drawing endgames because of this bug? if so -- couldn't simply lowering RES help performance quite a bit?
Yes and yes, a value of 60 was suggested.
1. Rook endgames
2. Time management
If you improved these two issues in 4.1 there would be a significant ELO boost. I don't know why you don't commit to improve them unless it is your policy to hold back strength deliberately.
a) Find the optimal NM and MM values for every possible time control and make Rybka switch to the default on time control change, the parameters would become offsets from optimal.
b) Rewrite the thing.
B includes borrowing sophisticated time control from the clones, as a vengeance, I'd expect instant elo boost and Rybka looking at normal chess like she looks at FRC (where the time management seems to have been self-optimized without needing to do anything, as in, no better settings have been found regarding TM).
I think the testers that can play thousands of games haven't focused in what really matters, for instance, they haven't played Rybka 4 core against Rybka 8 core at time handicap, so that they should score the same. If Rybka 8core wins by a significant margin it means there's some serious problem with multicore implementation that fixes itself with enough cores, and this can't be ruled out yet. I wonder if that will get tested at all.
The long term is what matters here. For the past four or five years, I've put a really large number of hours into Rybka's playing strength. I probably won't be able to keep this up, and can't have a situation where the moment I slow down the business comes to a stop.
> I probably won't be able to keep this up, and can't have a situation where the moment I slow down the business comes to a stop.
A very honest remark. Can I make it simpler?
"Better for me to hold back all the best strength improvements for Rybka 5 otherwise there goes my cash-flow".
Actually this looks bad at first reading, but I urge people to consider what you would do in his position, taking everything into account. When is that baby due, Vas?
> but I urge people to consider what you would do in his position, taking everything into account.
I would have withheld the improvements of course, but instead of the remote model, I'd have gone with a monthly release, for 10 elo improvements, at full price. The people that only buy the engine every 18 months would have bought it anyway (one of the versions), it's the people that want to live at the edge of strength that are interesting, those that upgrade their hardware every few months and overclock their machines to the limit, those are going to buy the engine every single month.
Also, with so frequent releases the community finds and reports bugs every time, so they're instantly gone the next month, and I wouldn't have broken time management due to this. Even the pirate that releases pirate Rybka to the internet has to buy it each month.
I'd have done this since Rybka 2.3.2a, probably having to run the risk of skipping some months where 10 elo wasn't possible, damn the logistics. Vas is going for an even more frequent release model (I think he has planned weekly updates or just giving the people that go with remote Rybka the option of using the latest beta), but the engine does never belong to the customer.
> This is a nightmare for users
For users that opt in, the rest can just buy the engine every year and ignore the other releases.
> The first time I go let's say two years without an improvement, I'd be toast.
I think remote Rybka has the same problem. People predict that an engine will top Rybka 4 in 5 months (probably Stockfish), it's unclear how much time Remote Rybka will remain useful.
Anyway, I'm just saying how would I have done things if I had an engine 200 elo stronger than the next competitor in my hands, if Remote Rybka is a big success I'll be the first retracting all my negative comments about the model
First, you have to consider that demand for Remote Rybka will not be large at all and Vas's paying customer base for that product at least some period of time will number in the dozens or at most the low hundreds. In fact I feel pretty sure that Vas would view 200 paying customers as a success from a financial standpoint, because among those would be an elite handful of plutocrats that would be paying top dollar for the very best available strength.
Second, you have to consider that for many of the users that will emerge the idea is not to replace their PCs but rather to permit portability. If you are an OTB player or commentator at a tournament what a difference it would make to have a laptop with a wireless connection able to tap a high-end machine on demand.
Third, Remote Rybka offers the possibility to scale up to cluster strength, which Stockfish would not be able to do.
Fourth, it would be a fallacy to think of Remote Rybka being the same as Rybka 4. As we have been told in a variety of ways, it is much stronger. It will never be rated on CCRL/CEGT because it has no hardware peers.
> 1 out of 6 games is a huge improvement
I meant 1 out of 6 critical positions (the other 5 times Remote Rybka suggests a move that loses/doesn't win), I don't know how this translates to real games, I get critical positions on my games very often, the terrain is really hard and far away from perfect, if Remote Rybka failed me 5 out of 6 times, I wouldn't feel it was worth it.
What are your expectations on Remote Rybka and critical positions? I doubt they're lower than "I see a winning/saving move 1 out of 50 times", so you'd be expected to be a Remote Rybka customer.
> I don't believe that if a program, let's say Stockfish, surpassed Rybka 4 sometime this year or next that there would be a collapse in demand for Remote Rybka.
I agree. Stockfish is a prime (legal) example of an engine that outperforms it's spotty evaluation by being a kickass beancounter. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of positions it's a sub par analysis engine. The eval is downright hostile to human evaluation and worse yet, it's extremely unstable and fluctuates constantly when analyzing complex positions. Trying to get it to remember a position that was analyzed only seconds prior is an exercise in frustration - sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't. At the end of the day, Stockfish is an engine that's much more useful in the engine room than it is for any kind of serious analysis and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, even if it somehow manages to overtake Rybka on the ratings lists. (Sounds familiar, doesn't it?)
> The first time I go let's say two years without an improvement, I'd be toast.
This is life !
One can not rest for 2 Years unless you win at lotery.
> When is that baby due, Vas?
In a week (meaning, any time)!
In computer chess, programmers tend to peter out after a decade or so. I'm kind of different so maybe it will be different for me, who knows!
Here's hoping the baby is born July 11. (My first-born's birthday and wedding day!)
> July 11
and my birthday!
My two cents.
First, you put down the foundation. Then the structure. Then the walls. Finally, you put flowers in the windows.
If you like flowers, you'll just have to be a little patient.
i suggest all who are upset to respond and hopefully vas will release a rybka 4.1 or 5 with in the next 6 months.
rybka 4 is a major let down. vas, dont do this to people who believe in you just because you have money.
chess is the only joy in many peoples lives..........
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill