![[es]](/mwf/v12/flags/es.png "Spain")
Are there any general conditions or legal terms that we are accepting when we buy Rybka? Basically i am looking for the classical clause "this software is provided AS IS..."
Maybe this can be an idea for Vas.
Maybe this can be an idea for Vas.
> Maybe this can be an idea for Vas.
If I'm correct in my assumption, you're implying that this clause should relieve Vas of any responsibilities to update a Rybka product if falters or has bugs, since it's "As Is". Fine. But for now, since this clause is not present, Vas has the obligation to fix the bugs in Rybka and release it to the mass
(those who bought it).As for the legal terms when buying Rybka, I'd say no. But it makes one wonder why bugs are more present in commercial Rybka, requiring immediate fixing but getting none, compared to other commercial engines; Deep Shredder, HIARCS, Naum. Deep Fritz, Zappa, Deep Junior .... that rarely have feature bugs in their products.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
The idea that other engines don't have bugs is nonsense. They just don't go under the magnifying glass like Rybka. I think we are also more accepting of bugs in an engine say 100 Elo lower than the top engine.
Still, I think it is a mater of pride and reputation to fix at least two thirds of the bugs.
Still, I think it is a mater of pride and reputation to fix at least two thirds of the bugs.
> They just don't go under the magnifying glass like Rybka.
Not really. It is well known these others commercials have significantly less to no bugs compared to Rybka. The trade-off here is these other commercials are weaker than Rybka 4
> I think we are also more accepting of bugs in an engine say 100 Elo lower than the top engine.
>
Most likely the 100 elo gap may be a freeware product which is understood. Even if the 100 elo gap applies to commercials, it is highly likely these commercials don't have the 'feature bug" Rybka 3 & 4 has.
But in agreement ,yes, it is a matter of reputation and accepting responsibility to fix problems in one's own product.
The scrutiny is defiantly not at the same level.
Deep Junior for instance (not the current one I don't have it so I don't know) will crash absolutely every time it is allowed to run on infinite for more than about 30 hours on my machine. Actually I think it is a depth thing. If it reaches a certain depth, it just crashes. I think it was depth 35 or 36 but I can't recall. And it may only take a couple hours or less to get there. And to top it off mine just would not run anymore one day. I guess it corrupted itself.
Anyone with the newest Junior willing to let it run 24 hours from the start position and see if it goes belly-up?
Anyone with the newest Junior willing to let it run 24 hours from the start position and see if it goes belly-up?
Well, I don't mean crashes, though this constitutes a bug. I'm referring specifically to an 'engine's feature & functions' visible in the UCI set-option lists, intended to be used by the user. In this regard, most other commercial engines have a full working and stable engine-feature/functions. In the situation where this is not so, it is promptly fixed. Of course I know these commercial engines are not as strong as Rybka 4, except for the 'powerful unmentionable' - which is freeware.
So the question that comes to mind is; in the case of Rybka, is strength a substitute for proper engine-feature usage and stability or is the bug-fix in contingent with other commercial authors 'catching up' to Rybka 4's strength, which will then prompt the author of Rybka to (a) either produce a stable bug-free version from the get-go or (b) produce a version which later proved to have bugs and then Vas fixes the bugs ASAP?
From another view point; what if other commercial engines have equal strength to, or, stronger than Rybka 4 and still have & maintain a more stable engine-features and full feature-usage compared to Rybka 4, do you think the public would've gotten this 'Rybka bug-fix silence' from Mr.Vas....when customers now have more options to select in engines, strength-wise?
This is one of the underlying issues, among others, I'm referring to.
So the question that comes to mind is; in the case of Rybka, is strength a substitute for proper engine-feature usage and stability or is the bug-fix in contingent with other commercial authors 'catching up' to Rybka 4's strength, which will then prompt the author of Rybka to (a) either produce a stable bug-free version from the get-go or (b) produce a version which later proved to have bugs and then Vas fixes the bugs ASAP?
From another view point; what if other commercial engines have equal strength to, or, stronger than Rybka 4 and still have & maintain a more stable engine-features and full feature-usage compared to Rybka 4, do you think the public would've gotten this 'Rybka bug-fix silence' from Mr.Vas....when customers now have more options to select in engines, strength-wise?
This is one of the underlying issues, among others, I'm referring to.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
>The idea that other engines don't have bugs is nonsense.
Prima brought up the Shredder Challenge: I dare you to report a Shredder engine bug
That is a bit of a strawman. I did not say there is no engine with less bugs only that other top engines have bugs that would be identified if they were as "turn and cough" scrutinized.
I know Shredder has at least one bug because it will crash now and then, but less frequently than most. I think Critter is the only one not to have crashed in my tournaments. That is over thousands of games. Critter 0.80, 5418 games, 0 crashes. Deep Shredder 12, 4543 games, 3 crashes, I think. The unmentionable engines are terrible with one exception. They rarely can go 150 games without a crash. Hiarcs is very stable, only one crash, I think in 7570 games. At that level, it could be a random cosmic ray hitting my CPU or memory. Most engines crash about 1 in 800 games but they are usually not bad crashes and just loose on time. Rybka 4 is in that ballpark but some crashes are severe. Usually one thread will crash and when it gets to the next move it results in a bad crash. Rybka 3 was more stable. Of course R4 crashes in other circumstances that everyone knows about now.
Shredder is also a 12th generation program, whereas Rybka is only a 4th generation program. That means there has been a lot of time to iron out bugs and recognize bugs as well as realize what might generate a bug and avoid them.
It could also be a conscious decision to do some shaky programming to get a higher rating at the cost of some stability. In which case it is just a judgment call.
I know Shredder has at least one bug because it will crash now and then, but less frequently than most. I think Critter is the only one not to have crashed in my tournaments. That is over thousands of games. Critter 0.80, 5418 games, 0 crashes. Deep Shredder 12, 4543 games, 3 crashes, I think. The unmentionable engines are terrible with one exception. They rarely can go 150 games without a crash. Hiarcs is very stable, only one crash, I think in 7570 games. At that level, it could be a random cosmic ray hitting my CPU or memory. Most engines crash about 1 in 800 games but they are usually not bad crashes and just loose on time. Rybka 4 is in that ballpark but some crashes are severe. Usually one thread will crash and when it gets to the next move it results in a bad crash. Rybka 3 was more stable. Of course R4 crashes in other circumstances that everyone knows about now.
Shredder is also a 12th generation program, whereas Rybka is only a 4th generation program. That means there has been a lot of time to iron out bugs and recognize bugs as well as realize what might generate a bug and avoid them.
It could also be a conscious decision to do some shaky programming to get a higher rating at the cost of some stability. In which case it is just a judgment call.
Shredder does not win all of its games!
> "this software is provided AS IS..."
ppipper! That, is the typical clause entered into "most", if not all, privately sold "used" cars, in the U.S. It make it clear from the outset that you are getting crap for the price and do not retain any rights re: under the "Lemon Law".
If a software as performance issues it should not be sold. Period!
If the software has in inherent defects, it should be replaced with one that doesn't .
I don't get the point of this thread? Especially, in view of all that has transpired with Vas's verbal commitment to correct any performance defects.
He sure as hell isn't playing with the same one he sold commercially!
Well, releasing a software with "as is" clause does not mean you are buying crappy software (at least this is my experience as software lawyer). The real meaning is that you know What you are buying with its limitations and virtues...
Come on! If you buy anything with that clause you are asking for trouble! Especially if it is computer software or hardware!
P.S
Any reputable company will spell out in the "warranty" what the limits are for returns or updates. If there is no warranty " buyer beware".
Especially if it is computer software or hardware!P.S
Any reputable company will spell out in the "warranty" what the limits are for returns or updates. If there is no warranty " buyer beware".
> Come on! If you buy anything with that clause you are asking for trouble!
Agreed with all your inputs, sidserious.
Just to add; if Vas didn't make his Rybka commercial and then added that clause, this would be fine. No arguments what so ever. But where money transactions for goods/services are involved, it changes the entire ball game including "product liability". This is the very concept that seems to elude most who think a commercial buggy product (especially in the case of Rybka) is "normal" and acceptable. Even the Stockfish team who make their engines for free (Thanks to them) opt to promptly fix known bugs in their product. You would think then that a commercial product deserves even more attention.
Watch out legal terms of 90% software
Vas verbal commitments?
He does not go on with written ones, What do you think about the verbal ones?
He does not go on with written ones, What do you think about the verbal ones?
> Vas verbal commitments?
> He does not go on with written ones, What do you think about the verbal ones?
What is your argument here? What is it that you are trying to prove? This has been beat to bloody death!!!!
Maybe the clause could be something like "... this is a very buggy product and it is provided as is". However, she is number one engine in all official lists (by far).
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
True, but not No1 in all lists!
Where can I check the other lists?
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill