agree
but if im not wrong,Houdart claimed H3 will be around 25 elo points stronger than H2,not 40
but if im not wrong,Houdart claimed H3 will be around 25 elo points stronger than H2,not 40
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
I believe the 25 was what he mentioned he had already achieved. Whilst he doesn't mention a figure he does mention he is continuing to develop the strength of the engine prior to release so my number that contained an 'ish' statement {meaning approximate} was entirely speculative based on what he claims to have achieved so far and the amount of time left between when he started doing this and the release date. Make sense?
yes,make sense...
achieving 25 elo points every year at that top level,is a lot,even if it seems that is only a few improvement
well,i think we must wait until another 'break' will be make and another 100-200 elo points will be added to the top engines
achieving 25 elo points every year at that top level,is a lot,even if it seems that is only a few improvement
well,i think we must wait until another 'break' will be make and another 100-200 elo points will be added to the top engines
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
> The competition is so tough one can't seriously offer them something second best.
Unless Chessbase and/or Convekta will have direct stakes in people using the Rybka Cluster.
> Yes, a bit. Rook & pawn endgames seemed to be played much better by the cluster, and endgames in general were evaluated better.
That would seem to be a predominant issue in the majority of games I've seen on small hardware.
>IMO this is nonsense. R4.1 was the best he had at the time of its release.
Why do you believe that?
4.1 was a bug fix release. It appeared many months after R4 and we know Vas had been working on the cluster version before rleasing 4.1. We also know that 4.1 was not the same as the cluster verison.
There are two aspects of this whole business that I believe defy reality:
1) I find it hard to believe that Vas is so much a better programmer than *all* other chess programmers that he can make a new #1 chess program that is significantly ahead of all other current programs while keeping significant chess knowledge in reserve for a next version, again ahead of all competitors.
2) I do not believe that buyers in the (small) market for the networked Rybka program are so stupid as to consider differences between top programs on such a network to be significant. The only issue would be how well a chess program plays on a network, not some differences in chess strength between a Rybka 4.1 and a 5.0.
1) I find it hard to believe that Vas is so much a better programmer than *all* other chess programmers that he can make a new #1 chess program that is significantly ahead of all other current programs while keeping significant chess knowledge in reserve for a next version, again ahead of all competitors.
2) I do not believe that buyers in the (small) market for the networked Rybka program are so stupid as to consider differences between top programs on such a network to be significant. The only issue would be how well a chess program plays on a network, not some differences in chess strength between a Rybka 4.1 and a 5.0.
![[il]](/mwf/v12/flags/il.png "Israel")
I don't really think that Vas has enough for a number one program, plus more left over.
Houdini might end up almost 150 elo stronger than Rybka 4, so Rybka 5 will have to have atleast an improvement of 150 elo for his next released version.
It would be useful if Vas had a version that was 250 elo stronger than Rybka 4. Then he can afford to release a crippled version again.
Houdini might end up almost 150 elo stronger than Rybka 4, so Rybka 5 will have to have atleast an improvement of 150 elo for his next released version.
It would be useful if Vas had a version that was 250 elo stronger than Rybka 4. Then he can afford to release a crippled version again.
![[se]](/mwf/v12/flags/se.png "Sweden")
same user probably? All he does is ask these questions nobody knows.
It will be another 2 years and only +15 ELO improvement :)
No, this guy is legitimate (unlike "Magnus"), and was actually just trying to see if Lukas has any news he can share.
a monthly update would be nice and I don't think it would take Vas too much time :)
+1
When you say, "I don't think it would take Vas too much time" how much more time will he need? I mean, some of us are near to death and it would be a pity if it were going to take too much longer as seeing R5 perform from the other side would probably feel like hell if it turned out to be as good as we hoped and couldn't get our hands on it! 
I think that even writing something like "guys this month I worked on the search" or "guys this month I improved the evaluation" or "guys this month no improvements just bug fixing" or "ok guys rybka 5 is almost ready now we will do beta testing this month" would be enough for us fans and it would take only a minute :)
everything would be better than months of complete silence
everything would be better than months of complete silence
+1
![[hr]](/mwf/v12/flags/hr.png "Croatia")
Thanks Turbo. I did get an answer in January, and did hope for another now.
Vas is not like you and me. Most of us would cultivate a loyal customer base, communicate news, write teaser articles extolling new developments and features. Alas, Vas is not a marketing guy; he just programs. And he does it with no accountability. I.e. no release dates, no schedules, no deliverables. If you think about it, it's pretty close to an ideal life if you can support a family that way.
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
> no release dates, no schedules
For what I've seen Vas does have them but fails to meet them every time.
No accountability. He doesn't have to deliver by a certain date or face definite penalties, like getting fired or having his legs broken. He may have goals, but they are all in his head and he doesn't make them, so what. Income deferred. It's the sweet life, let me tell you. I wish I could live like that! It takes real talent or a rich father (or both) to pull it off.
I think society should allow everyone to live like that. Actually, there's enough abundance to allow that, the problem is that the abundance is monopolized by the few people at the top of the pyramid.
I blame The Monkeysphere for that, though that means hopefully as the brain evolves this problem will diminish.
I blame The Monkeysphere for that, though that means hopefully as the brain evolves this problem will diminish.
I read your link. What I perceive as the main difference between peoples is that some want to change the reality described, some embrace it, and most don't give a damn. The ones who want to forcibly change everyone else or who believe in the ability to attain measurable evolutionary development within a human lifetime are the dangerous ones. Unfortunately, such individuals are heavily overrepresented in government.
For my part, I'd like to go from my current sphere of maybe 50 (at most) to 10 or less. Does that make me a sub-ape? No. It makes me practical. Imagine if you knew and personally cared about 5,000 people. Can you imagine what sheer hell your life would be? It's just unimaginable. Try to imagine having 5,000 wives, for example. Sounds good for about two seconds, then...the horror, the horror!
The one person I have met in my life who might meet your criteria for an advanced man is the founder of my town. He's 98 years old now and there is a modest statue of him in the middle of town. Everywhere he goes, everybody knows who he is and they're all glad to see him. 50 years ago he bought thousands of acres of undeveloped land and planned the whole community, which thrived. The first three letters of the town, RES, are his initials. What a happy life, huh?
For my part, I'd like to go from my current sphere of maybe 50 (at most) to 10 or less. Does that make me a sub-ape? No. It makes me practical. Imagine if you knew and personally cared about 5,000 people. Can you imagine what sheer hell your life would be? It's just unimaginable. Try to imagine having 5,000 wives, for example. Sounds good for about two seconds, then...the horror, the horror!
The one person I have met in my life who might meet your criteria for an advanced man is the founder of my town. He's 98 years old now and there is a modest statue of him in the middle of town. Everywhere he goes, everybody knows who he is and they're all glad to see him. 50 years ago he bought thousands of acres of undeveloped land and planned the whole community, which thrived. The first three letters of the town, RES, are his initials. What a happy life, huh?
>having 5,000 wives, for example. Sounds good for about two seconds, then...the horror, the horror!
the horror?if they can maintain you,and you can have sex all the days,where is the horror Nelson?
You haven't really imagined it. You can't get past the first two seconds of analysis, or you don't understand women. Something like that would mean quick and certain death, I am guessing.
I'm guessing Barnard would spend a day with a different wife, for 5000 days, instead of all of them simultaneously.
As for me, I believe in fairness, and I wouldn't want my wife to spend her time with another husband, so I wouldn't even have 2 women. For loyalty, one wife is my limit. Now, let's see if I even get to that...
As for me, I believe in fairness, and I wouldn't want my wife to spend her time with another husband, so I wouldn't even have 2 women. For loyalty, one wife is my limit. Now, let's see if I even get to that...
My God, you have your little stud service nicely arranged in the abstract, don't you? Very rational. As if 5,000 women would fall into line like cars on an assembly line! They are each individuals and they will surely have their own ideas and misgivings, don't you think? And don't you think a certain percentage of them would get really pissed off by your arrangements? Even if only 1% of them went psycho (which is very optimistic) you'd have 50 of them wanting to kill you, and probably several hundreds more very discontented.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Just imagine paying for thousands of divorces
between 1 and thousand there is not much difference...... you will have no money left my friend !
Yes, and it really doesn't matter if you have $1 or $100 billion, it's the same outcome.
In Germany you lose half your money + the payment for your lawyer. So effectively "only" ~70% are gone.
But there's a much bigger problem. I'm quite happy my mother-in-law lives more than 500 km away from us (her attitudes come from the times of Kaiser Wilhelm II). But with 5000 mothers-in-law you won't be able to escape all of them.
But there's a much bigger problem. I'm quite happy my mother-in-law lives more than 500 km away from us (her attitudes come from the times of Kaiser Wilhelm II). But with 5000 mothers-in-law you won't be able to escape all of them.
> her attitudes come from the times of Kaiser Wilhelm II
Uh-oh. Plays a lot of Wagner and Bruckner, does she? A believer in Machtpolitik? Likes parades? Appreciates men in uniform? Unkind words for the French?
Her husband (RIP) was born in the late 19th century. The only time she visited us she got totally disgusted because I cooked coffee. In her mind the master of the house (I) shouldn't do such profane things.
I happen to agree with her 100% and have followed her Wilhelmine approach very strictly and without conflict for the past 35 years. She's right, the master does not prepare coffee! You'd be amazed at the long list of mundane chores I do not do. And neither should you; you are making life worse for all of us by setting a poor precedent either out of ignorance or deliberate sabotage! You and all other men who participate in this forum should join my Husbands union. Working conditions must be improved and there must be effective collective bargaining. Those who think themselves our overlords have had it too easy for too long and it is time to bust up their racket.
Women deserve better, in my house I do all the chores I'm asked to, and I find it fair. And I don't do them for ignorance or sabotage, I do it because I believe in gender equality and think that men have abused their powers for too long already.
I also think it's the way of the future, fewer and fewer are the woman that tolerate male chauvinism, and I think it's an improvement on society.
I also think it's the way of the future, fewer and fewer are the woman that tolerate male chauvinism, and I think it's an improvement on society.
OMG, this is a sad, sad admission. And you don't tolerate cursing, either!
Time to light a cigar.
Time to light a cigar.
I also admit to never had smoked a cigar, and I don't do alcohol. I don't think that's related to respect for woman, though.
I'm an asthmatic, so if I'm going to smoke something it better rock my world (thanks 5-MeO!).
I don't mind alcohol, I just hardly ever drink. I don't know what to do when I'm drinking since I normally read and study things and this cannot be done properly whilst intoxicated. If I had friends maybe, we could drink and chat, but I haven't got any.
I used to like having some shots and watching anime, made some sub-standard anime seem awesome. I cba to do that nowadays though. I have a hard time doing something that is not interactive for long periods of time like watching television/streams.
I don't mind alcohol, I just hardly ever drink. I don't know what to do when I'm drinking since I normally read and study things and this cannot be done properly whilst intoxicated. If I had friends maybe, we could drink and chat, but I haven't got any.
I used to like having some shots and watching anime, made some sub-standard anime seem awesome. I cba to do that nowadays though. I have a hard time doing something that is not interactive for long periods of time like watching television/streams.
> I have a hard time doing something that is not interactive for long periods of time like watching television/streams.
Because you get bored, I hope?
Also, don't you consider online friends as "friends"?
>Because you get bored, I hope?
Sometimes I'm very interested in what I'm watching. I just watch it in parts. My attention span has eroded I suppose.
>Also, don't you consider online friends as "friends"?
Well I suppose, but it's quite a bit different than real life.
I see, we're just "virtual" friends, we're not real. With real friends it is a lot easier to hit them up for money.
> I see, we're just "virtual" friends, we're not real.
We're probably outside his monkeysphere, and he can only see us as he would see two dimensional scripts that produce text for him to read.
Probably outside? I would say definitely outside.
>We're probably outside his monkeysphere, and he can only see us as he would see two dimensional scripts that produce text for him to read.
>Probably outside? I would say definitely outside.
You guys are off on some kind of loony tangent :-)
If you knew me at all you'd know how far off in the wrong direction you're going on this in regards to me personally.
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
>I do it because I believe in gender equality
And you have a wrong believe. Remember you cant compare apple and oranges although both are fruits.
Men are never equal to women. If you think Men have misused power so do the women but its pathetic that
this thing is not highlighted. The way way men get tortured , women also.
Beauty and power is with men. But women have the selectivity and cleverness.
All the differences are biological. There is no equality and its natures rule to have equality in inequality.
> Beauty and power is with men.
What? Women are much more beautiful than men. Physical strength is only praised because of the men-centered world that we live.
Equity means both deserve the same rights, you speak like you do because you're a man, if you were a woman and were treated unfairly just because you were a woman, would you like it?
>What? Women are much more beautiful than men.
Wrong. It seems you are totally unaware of the Science of Sexes. Remember Its Nature's rule not mine. "Beauty is Masculine" not feminine. That's Nature's rule. And i am talking about physical beauty.Let me give an example. The lion's Mane is beautiful and its not in lioness!!. Only the male cuckoo sings sweet not female. The Peacock's Dance with the feathers open is of male's and peahens don't have it either. Elephant's tusks is beautiful and it looks good if long and only males have it not the female elephants. The rooster's tail and the sun in the head is the beauty and only male cocks have it not hens. There are many more examples like that in nature. And we humans are not different. If we feel females are beautiful its reminds me of " Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder." But you may ask then what do females have then ?. Its the ability to choose the beauty. Lioness chooses the most powerful Lion and like Elephants choose the best tusker , female cuckoos choose the best singer and peahens choose the the peacock with the maximum no of eggs in the feather and so on....... But why things look beautiful there is another theory to it and I hope you know it.
>Physical strength is only praised because of the men-centered world that we live.
Again wrong. Compare two bodybuilders a man and a woman and you will know what I mean by power. For example What the record in weight lifting in Olympics for male and female ?
It does not mean female are weak!!! . According to Anthropology women body is far more superior than males internally. Thats why there are more diseases for females than males. Its the brain that is the power on a woman. That's the reason why male and female should live together. Symmetry in asymmetry . That's nature's rule. Two equal things cannot live together and there is no exception in nature.
Regarding why males are more powerful and women have better brain you have to understand evolution. When the modern man arrived all had equality just as like apes have in their society.
But after they give birth to babies its hard for men to understand what the baby wants. So all women were stuck in taking care of babies. So all men had to leave them in caves and go for food to the jungles. This required Physical ability and breathing power to sustain power and kill more and larger animals for their tribes. So through evolution they developed Physical power. In the mean time when babies are asleep , what do womens do in cave ?
The thing that they do better than any other breeds of females... Gossiping . So in the meantime they developed linguistic abilities. Hence through evolution they developed the ability of communication and women are better communicators than men.So there is no equity, never.
> Wrong. It seems you are totally unaware of the Science of Sexes. Remember Its Nature's rule not mine. "Beauty is Masculine" not feminine. That's Nature's rule. And i am talking about physical beauty.Let me give an example. The lion's Mane is beautiful and its not in lioness!!. Only the male cuckoo sings sweet not female. The Peacock's Dance with the feathers open is of male's and peahens don't have it either. Elephant's tusks is beautiful and it looks good if long and only males have it not the female elephants. The rooster's tail and the sun in the head is the beauty and only male cocks have it not hens. There are many more examples like that in nature. And we humans are not different. If we feel females are beautiful its reminds me of " Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder." But you may ask then what do females have then ?. Its the ability to choose the beauty. Lioness chooses the most powerful Lion and like Elephants choose the best tusker , female cuckoos choose the best singer and peahens choose the the peacock with the maximum no of eggs in the feather and so on....... But why things look beautiful there is another theory to it and I hope you know it.
I am aware of all that. I claim all those extra accessories the males have are to fight against other males for the females, or to impress the females by having a better appearance so the females pick them instead of picking a male that looks worse.
So, the females have natural beauty enough for the males to fight for them or do their circus, while males need extra accessories to have a chance at mating. This is no different for human guys having to have money, a nice house, and a car to impress the girls, while the girls aren't expected to have any of that and can woo a guy with their appearance and brains alone.
In science it's called the Handicap Principle.
>For example What the record in weight lifting in Olympics for male and female ?
And as I said, weight lifting is only praised because we live in a male-centered world. There's nothing special or life-enhancing about being able to lift weight.
>So, the females have natural beauty.....
That's what males think and that's relative from man to man. I am talking something neutral and that's why its said that "Beauty is Masculine" and that's the truth.
>while males need extra accessories to have a chance at mating. This is no different for human guys having to have money, a nice house, and a car to impress the girls, while the girls aren't expected to have any of that and can woo a guy with their appearance and brains alone.
Thats One aim with different methods. Males are egocentric and tend to show off their assets and they are biologically built like that. Girls don't need that is absolutely wrong as they too need assets to show off but the way is bit different. Because They are built like that . Big boobs , narrow waist , nice smile are just few assets. So you can't really compare. As i said before , don't compare apples and oranges. That's the natures rule of symmetry in asymmetry.
And You should know why this difference. A Man don't always need to woo a woman and vice-versa is also true. An ugly king can cave 10 beautiful wives and its not astonishing. I understand the handicap principle but the interpretation of the principle by you is wrong. Remember its a hypothesis.
Don't ever think that women don't need assets!!.Its that beauty you are talking about (which is skin deep only and Beauty is internal and it don't need assets. Neither for man nor for woman).
A woman is a typically built selfish being. It always thinks of survival and it can do go to any extent for it. A woman tends to love the most Handsome guy but in case of marriage it goes for someone who has status and power in society no matter if he is ugly.
Those assets you defined male use women don't need as nature have given them and they don't use it. But actually they use the nature supplied one or else they go for breast transplant , botox and as such. Why you think women do make up for ??
>And as I said, weight lifting is only praised because we live in a male-centered world.
Again you are interpreting my statement wrong. I was talking about Muscular ability of man and woman which has nothing to do with male centered world. A male's muscle is built for power where as women are supple and have more resistance power to bear pain ( like labor pain). Also Women body builders take male hormones to achieve that . So i was talking in neutral sense. Its not astonishing that in astronaut training women succeed more than men.!!
> That's what males think and that's relative from man to man. I am talking something neutral and that's why its said that "Beauty is Masculine" and that's the truth.
How come "Beauty is feminine" is relative and "Beauty is masculine" is neutral?? It seems both have a bias.
Equity says that both males and females have beauty, otherwise, you're saying women are ugly.
>As i said before , don't compare apples and oranges.
Men and women aren't THAT different at the physical level, I'd say it's like comparing apples and pears:
I am repeating again. Nature has provided beauty and power to males ( not skin deep) and the abilty to choose it and use it to females.
Gods creation of balance is unquestionable. On is incomplete without the other.
Yes true. Both have beauty but that does not mean women are ugly!!, I said Beauty is with males. But females enjoy it . Males beauty is related to the natural abilities they have Just like A male cuckoo sings but not a female one.
They are totally different. There bodies are different, Their Thought process is different...
Males don't give birth to offspring by the way. .
They are physically different but not in a social way. The problem is most societies look the difference biologically. ( A woman cannot roam easily with her top naked generally but men can do)
Gods creation of balance is unquestionable. On is incomplete without the other.
>Equity says that both males and females have beauty, otherwise, you're saying women are ugly.
Yes true. Both have beauty but that does not mean women are ugly!!, I said Beauty is with males. But females enjoy it
. Males beauty is related to the natural abilities they have Just like A male cuckoo sings but not a female one.>Men and women aren't THAT different at the physical level,
They are totally different. There bodies are different, Their Thought process is different...
Males don't give birth to offspring by the way.
.They are physically different but not in a social way. The problem is most societies look the difference biologically. ( A woman cannot roam easily with her top naked generally but men can do
)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill