I am shocked that you of all people are questioning the inevitable. You are not waiting for Godot, you are waiting for Rybka 2.3.2! I see you as a main stay and regular contributor to a healthy Rybka. It is very seriously Darwinian. Hang in there dude. It is "all" a matter of perspective!!!
very cool image! in the right hand corner-don't just think "might mouse" be Mighty Mouse.
As an after thought- there has to be a great deal of pressure on Vas to shore-up a lot of loose ends and then hope that no new one pop up from out of no where. I am encouraged that 2.3.2 will be a great ending to one series and a very promising beginning to the 3 series.
I believe that if 2.3.2 is a good bug fixed version, it will be the last version of the 2 series. Probably it will play a little bit stronger as the small advantage that has 2.2 over 2.1.
But personally, I hope that Vas can achieve a better result.
I can understand your pessimism. One can't help but wonder how much further Vas can take Rybka. However, I don't think we should underestimate his abilities just yet. At some point he will have to take Rybka to an other level. Can he do it? That question is for a later history to answer. I think it must be a tough enough to give over a bug free Rybka, especially since he is at the cut-edge of chess engine technology. His admirers as well as his critics have to appreciate that fact.If they won't, then I would say that they are just green with envy.
In time the technological paradigm will shift in ways we can barely conceive now and new people will emerge to take computer chess to new levels...on and on through the generations, until finally the game is solved for all practical intents and all competitive games end in draws. How thrilling it will be to report this phenomenal achievement! How exciting to watch thousands of unique games in a row end in a draw! (I am teasing Michael, if he's reading this.)
You can't believe everything you read. Chess is very small potatos when it comes to internet traffic. Think YouTube, gaming, pornography, maybe even real time financial quotes. Chess isn't even on the radar screen.
I am afraid you are wrong there. Chess is on the radar screen albeit a fraction of a third of users reported, it has at the very least its own designation outside of games played. But, please, I am not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here. I do realize what you are saying and agree with you-but, I do believe you are underestimating the games relevance on the net.
If ever this state will be achieved some day - it will certainly not be anytime soon. Remember the old legend of the wheat corns...
> Just imagine the panic and angst in the forum if Vasik were to announce that he was taking a one-month vacation to some remote place far from the distractions of modern life!
How much time do you think Vas would need to go on vacation for the competiton to catch up?
2.3.1 is full of bugs (it can see mate when there is no mate and it also can forget the pv because of hash bugs)
If Vas is going to fix all bugs then
I will be surprised if 2.3.2 is not going to be at least 50 elo better than 2.3.1 and previous versions(at least at long time control)
Here's 3 examples of what I'm talking about.
I am not talking about bad evaluation but simply about tactical blunders like seeing mate when there is no mate.
I guess that the tactical blunders that we saw is only part of the effect and there are positional blunders that rybka does because of the bug when we even do not know about them when rybka reject a move because it see in her calculation mate that does not exist.
PS: Legendary, you are the best! But I don´t know, what I can answer.
I also get in other rating lists smaller difference between 2.2 and 2.3 than the difference that you have
Here is the evidence:
Rybka 2.2 32-bit 2992 +14 −14 73.9% −175.7 28.8% 2149
Rybka 2.3.1 32-bit 2990 +16 −15 75.5% −189.0 25.7% 1719
Rybka 2.3 32-bit 2974 +27 −26 74.9% −183.0 26.7% 570
12 Rybka 2.3.1 w32 1CPU 2954 38 37 232 71.6 % 2793 35.3 %
13 Rybka 1.2f w32 2941 27 26 555 74.1 % 2758 27.2 %
14 Rybka 2.2 w32 1CPU 2939 17 17 1168 69.0 % 2800 34.4 %
18 Rybka 2.3 LK w32 1CPU 2925 48 47 154 66.9 % 2803 31.2 %
My concerns may differ from your and a great many others in this forum, in that I do not run engine vs engine games. My use of Rybka is strictly based on human vs engine games. However, with that said, I do rely on Rybka's superior chess engine intelligence to give me a first rate analysis of the games I play. I can always run analysis with another chess engine just to compare notes if I have any doubts. Ultimately, at this point in time, my use of Rybka pales in comparison to the engine vs engine enthusiast.
The engine vs engine enthusiast lies at the fringe of a vaster chess playing public. I would venture to guess that Vas's heart is in beating other chess engines. But, I am willing to bet that he is also focusing on tapping into the boarder chess playing public.
Some people think that the awareness of computer chess engine programs are limited to a few enthusiast. To me that is narrow minded and tunnel vision.
Most every public school and/or community have a chess club, and I would venture to think that its members are aware, in varying degrees, of chess engine technology and its application.
The first versions (ie. Rybka 1.0 and Rybka 2.0) sound like major versions, but they were really raw. The final versions (1.2n and now 2.3.2) sound like afterthoughts, but these are essentially what the customers are paying for.
The numbers should be something like 0.79, 0.89, 0.90. 0.91, leading up to 1.0, and then again with 2.0.
Klaus Wlotzka retired and the CSS-online Ratinglist is dead. Hopefully 2.3.2 is so good, that we don´t need a look to trustful ratinglists to decide, which Rybka version is the best.
"I have the openings, which are problematic for chess programs (King’s Indian, Scandinavian, Evans gambit), deleted and replaced by more common ones, e.g. Grunfeld Indian, Dutch, Nimzo-Indian. Hereby I reached a relatively wide spectrum, namely per 4 games of the opening category A -E."
I think that this condition is not a good condition because if some engine has a relative advantage in the opening that you describe as problematic openings you cannot see it in the rating list.
The only reason not to include an opening is if the position is not balanced but if computers score is not balanced (say 80% for white) when the problem is not that the position is not balanced and computers can lose against humans even when they play white because humans know the right plan for black then it is better to include the opening in the rating list and an author who implements knowledge how to play with black should get an higher rating for his(her) program.
At CCRL we do have the freedom to run that matches that interest us individually however when you combine these you do get reliable ratings. I also run a huge number of gauntlets with common opponents that gives better accuracy.
As for rules we do have rules - we use common opening books for all pairings limited to a maximum of 12 moves 24 ply - the time controls are adjusted to a control machine etc etc.
Our rules can be seen here: http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/discussion-board/viewtopic.php?t=1486
(For 40/4 the time control is 1/10th and we use less hash 64->128mb per thread.)
We also have a number of features that enable you to compare versions easily
From the index page you can select engines for comparison and get results like this:
This shows Rybka 2.3.1 64-bit 2CPU and Rybka 2.2 64-bit 2CPU with ratings and common opponents - individual result should be viewed carefully as with a small number of games less than say 100 almost anything is possible.
We also have a 'pure list' - there is info on this on the page
Unfortunately the pure list does require a very large number of games and opponent overlap for inclusion (which takes a while).
If you have any comments please register on our forum and post we are always happy to hear comments/suggestions as there is alway room for improvement.
All the best
There are very few things you can quote me on, but this is one of them.
>There will be exactly one more Rybka 2 version, 2.3.2.
I would prefer 2.4 as a ´final´ version 2 - maybe you´ll think about it ... ;-)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill