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.
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.
Anyone with the newest Junior willing to let it run 24 hours from the start position and see if it goes belly-up?
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.
>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
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.
> "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!
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! Especially if it is computer software or hardware
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.
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!!!!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill