Rybka Chess Community Forum
ChessBase has decided to contradict to the outrageous ongoing we had to witness in 2011.http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7791
Chessbase.com is among the most noted news sources about chess, and certainly World's leading information source about computer chess. That means, what's there may soon be in the New York Times.
ChessBase is also a business partner of Vas (not noted in the article), and Søren is a moderator here (not noted in the article). The article itself seems to just be a rehash/regurgitation of Ed and Chris's talking points ("software theft is irrelevant in the information age"), rather than an actual refutation of any of the evidence against Rybka/Vas. Maybe Part 2 will surprise, though...
And it should tell you something, CB is taking a big risk here. Angry emails, subscription cancellations, image loss. Why do they do this after all ?
> Why do they do this after all ?
Because they recognise it is the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of computer chess, and the utterly disgraceful conduct of the ICGA and certain individuals. I look forward to Part 2 of the article.
Because they want to sell Rybka 5?
Perhaps, they see Rybka from a more dynamic point- in its totality- as an original body of work. Viewing instead the ICGA's definition of originality as too restrictive and stultifying to allow for advancements in development.All the top chess engines today are a witness to this principle. No one has definitively proven that Vas copied Fruit code. At least they are allowing for a voice to be heard.
Perhaps . . . or they could just want to sell Rybka 5!
They are selling Rybka! Your position negates that. What would stop them from selling Rybka 5? Especially if it turned out to be a top seed bad boy?
Several things would hurt the sale of Rybka 5
- lack of availability
- poor performance
- bad press
- high price
- and so on . . .
I believe they are simply trying to resolve the 'bad press' aspect - makes perfect commercial sense to do so.
On top of what you suggest Chessbase may very well be also acting out of principle. Here they are practicing CRS (corporate social responsibility).
What they are not selling is -Houdini! Convekta is doing that. Perhaps if you placed your "want to sell.. " in that context, your statement might make more sense.
> Perhaps . . . or they could just want to sell Rybka 5!
You bring up the possible motives of chessbase, but conveniently forget to mention the possible motives of the programmers whose programs were trying to catch Rybka- so they were on the panel that convicted him. Memory lapse possibly?
Yep, my response was entirely speculative and aimed squarely at the possible commercial reasoning/thinking ChessBase had for running the article - no memory loss on my part, just pure 'speculative reasoning' that many others table here on a whole range of subjects. Let's hope George that this forum remains a free and open place where this kind of 'opinion-based' dialogue can continue!
> Perhaps . . . or they could just want to sell Rybka 5!
Then they are stupid, if this was about money they contracted Houdini.
Possibly so; business managers/directors do not have sole-rights to intelligence - if we take a sample from the ChessBase organisation and test for idiocy I'm sure the results would reveal nothing out of the ordinary - on the other hand . . .
Maybe they will soon sell both...
I think they'd rather just like to have the option to sell whatever the hell they please-that is legally acceptable !
By breaking ties with the ICGA they are making a statement that they are their own man and not governed by ICGA dictums. It is a very strong statement to make.
I actually do think that the main reason for them taking the risk in publishing this article is for greater sales of Rybka 5. No publicity is bad publicity. This also tells me that Rybka 5 will probably be ready in a couple of months or less.
Or, if Rybka doesn't pan out -Houdini?!
Which would make my perspective more to the point.
> I actually do think that the main reason for them taking the risk in publishing this article is for greater sales of Rybka 5
I don't see any risk whatsoever involved with publishing this article. Besides, remember Albert Silver said on this forum that Friedel didn't even know that he was part of the panel and when he found out what was going on, his reaction was that this whole thing is rubbish. My opinion is that the CB people genuinely feel that this ICGA document was a piece of garbage. Now you have chess programmers, Phd's, chess companies, etc, speaking against the ICGA document and Hyatt's usual argument that they are all "liars and idiots" is not gonna hold any water.
In support of this is the purported response of Chessbase toward the ICGA's reguest that they give coverage to the recent WCCC. Even Harvey had to come to terms with this one.
Hans told me ChessBase rejected to provide coverage, 'because of the faul play regarding Rybka' (or something like that).
If it's written on a piece of paper, it's worth the paper it's written on.
Parent - -/- By Harvey Williamson (****) Date 2011-12-14 16:12
I think the actual quote from someone at CB was, ' Screw the ICGA.' :-)
yeah, I remember that now, you are right. Probably CB was pissed off, but didn't want to come out with a rash decision, certainly they don't support cheating/plagiarism. I think now though, they feel there is enough evidence out there to reject the ICGA report so they have come out with guns blazing.
Houdini might be to controversial for them. But looking forward- Chessbase might be apprehensive over the ICGA's heavy handed actions and its intentions to wield its influence over the computer chess field of programming development.
(In any event. What the hell do I know!
It is the turning point. Vas' and Rybkas reputation, which were certainly damaged when the ICGA verdict was published, will now rise like a phoenix in the comprehension of a (wider than just computer chess) public.
I assume you read the second part already? It's good stuff! Looking forward to the rest of it.
Yes; also it will be interesting to see how the comments of chessbase.com readers look like.
With the way Soren keeps mentioning how Houdini is above everyone else (with charts and all) I just wonder if we'll see a Houdini with Fritz GUI package from them soon!
Can't wait to see the cover!
That gate may swing both ways.
I agree with you about how the Chessbase people feel. Nonetheless, publishing this is a potentially large risk in terms of credibility (if the reports can be easily refuted, which remains to be seen), and I think that the primary reason for publishing this is to increase sales of Rybka 5 through increased publicity. And I'm not saying that this is bad, either!
Yeah, tying this to the discussion of the other thread, probably Soren's articles are going to increase Rybka 5 sales more that beating Houdini 2 by 20 elo would...
The risk lies rather in the lap of the ICGA. They have seemingly by some accounts lost the promotional efforts of Chessbase. The commercially aligned petitioners who signed on to the ICGA's inquisition are to a large extent dependent upon Chessbase for their promo and sales. http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ChessBase
Take a gander at this!
There is more of a battle going on here than just defending Rybka and its sales. I'd say that Chessbase is now questioning and challenging the ICGA's power lust for determining policy and policing computer chess programming outside of the boundaries of its charter. The ICGA is attempting to set itself up as Big Brother. Chessbase doesn't want the ICGA dictating policy to them.
I was thinking along these lines as well. If you read the Levy Attack of the Clones article that set this whole affair in motion there is another (out of the blue) attack on the CSVN and its chairman Cock de Gorter portraying him (like Vas) a copy-boy. The start of killing a competitor in the process? Now there is only one yearly tournament, not 3.
Hmm :) Things are about to get interesting :)
Part 2 didn't surprise, neither did part 3 or part 4. All parts are full of inaccuracies. Mark Watkins has provided a very detailed and specific refutation for every point SR tried to make. It has been posted on CCC, maybe copied here by now, etc.
One good aspect to the Chessbase publication is that it is limited to blogging comments , and not a plethora of Bob Hyatt articles repetitiously asserting his Fata Morgana of data comparing Rybka code to stolen Fruit code.
Hopefully, they will ask him for:
Photo id, copy of his birth certificate, ip, copy of his drivers license, copy of his Social Security Number (all 9 numbers
(Where is Chris? I want to make sure there isn't anything that I've left out!
Rumor has it that Bob is already sending them his three thousandth comment!
The cluster, owned by Lukas Cimiotti, a German physician and member of the Rybka team, marshals the power of 300 late-model computer processors and plays chess at a hitherto unmatched and as-yet undefeated level
Untrue statement Rybka cluster has lost a tour game v sjeng.........
That line does not refer to individual games. It refers to tournaments. But you're right to point out the lack of clarity there.
I really enjoyed reading the Chessbase articles on this subject. Well done.
"A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess" presents the issues with a clarity ( and this is important) that a non programming public can understand, without delimiting or sacrificing the science necessary in understanding how the ICGA's report is constructed and why it is essentially weak in argument.
For the first time the general reading public can now read and understand the purport of the presenting issues. Hopefully, now, after reading these articles they will be in a better position to evaluate just how weak and arbitrary the ICGA's arguments are against Vas Rajlich.
I couldn't agree more with what you said.
The fly in the ointment is, however, that this publication will remain locked to the Chessbase audience, and won't make the snazzy headlines in international press that the initial tarnish against Vas has made.
However, Vas seems to me such a strong character he probably doesn't give a damn anyway, and has instead been applying his genius elsewhere all this time.
I can't wait to see what he is up to next - what new peak in a new (maybe related) domain he is working to conquer.
Maybe Poker :)
Perhaps other chess forums will pick up on it and it will snow ball into more of a public view.
I was very disappointed to see that the reaction at chess.com was confused at best. The meat of the article did not penetrate.
Nevertheless, I agree with you completely and hope that the general public gets the drift.
If you Google "A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess" you get a sense of just how wide spread these articles is and that it is at least being presented. I've noted it's being Tweeted. I think it will catch on.
[Edit] With that said, I haven 't as yet filtered out which are giving it positive or negative commentary!
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill