Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Interview with Vasik Rajlich (Rybka)
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Walter Eigenmann (**) Date 2009-10-18 09:56
.

In the Glarean Magazine you can read a new Interview with Vasik Rajlich (Rybka) in german and english:

http://glareanverlag.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/interview-schachprogramm-vasik-rajlich-rybka_glarean-magazin/

Regards: Walter

.
Parent - - By chessprofessional (**) Date 2009-10-18 10:14
What say Vas?  When come rybka 4?
Parent - By Geomusic (*****) Date 2009-10-18 10:29
he said he is in "release mode" hopefully that means SOON!!
Parent - - By Overlord (**) Date 2009-10-18 12:19
Interview in english:
GM: What is your main work to be done with Rybka right now?

VR: Right now I am in «release mode», there are a ton of little things to do now.

GM: What innovations may we expect from Rybka 4?

VR: The eval and search are revamped, Ichanged it completely three times last year. There will also be a few new analysis features.

GM: When approximately may we expect Rybka 4?

VR: This is still TBD.

GM: Will it be sold and distributed in the same ways as formerly?

VR: Yes, Convekta and ChessBase will be the publishers.

GM: Has there been any change in the team of developers?

VR: The development work is still done only by me, but we have a great team. Lukas Cimiotti has helped tremendously with the clustering and with tournament preparations, his contribution over the past year has been enormous. Our book team has changed a bit, we have added Jiri Dufek, while Jeroen Noomen remains involved. We will give more details later. I also should mention Felix Kling and his brother Christoph for their work on our web site, Hans van der Zijden as the Rybka operator, my wife Iweta for testing, Larry Kaufman for man-vs-machine matches and parameter tuning, and Nick Carlin for book work and tournament preparations.

GM: Will we have a public Rybka cluster-version sooner or later?

VR: This won’t be a part of the Rybka 4 release, but we do have plans for this in addition to competing in tournaments. It will be something a little different, you’ll have to stay tuned.

GM: Maybe you remember me asking you once at Rybka forum about multi-variant-mode of analysis. My special wish of automatic backward analysis in mv- mode was answered by you then as a matter of GUI, which it is, of course. But would you support it as useful, even sometimes in normal game mode, especially as for cluster version?

VR: Can you say what you mean by „backward analysis“?

GM: I just meant the feature of some GUIs to step back automatically in the game analyzed.

VR: The output of our cluster is a tricky issue which needs some thinking. Outputting a single PV is a poor fit to how the cluster searches. In principle, the cluster could provide a sort of multi-pv analysis even in its more efficient „game-play“ mode. So far we have only used the cluster for competitions, so this issue has not been resolved.

GM: Will the „find win“ mode be new too in Rybka 4 or will even a new WinFinder come up again?

VR: Making more interesting versions (including some WinFinders) is on my to-do list, but I haven’t touched it since Rybka 3. Ditto for „find win“ mode – it could be improved, but so far hasn’t been. Rybka herself is much stronger tactically now than Rybka 3.

GM: Or do you think nullmove to be switched off as an option of the engine would also be a feature worth adding?

VR: This feature probably doesn’t have enough value to add to the parameter list.

GM: Any news to be expected as for shared analysis and persistent hash?

VR: Not yet, so far there are only some bug fixes. This is another topic which will eventually get a lot of work.
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) Date 2009-10-18 13:40

> Rybka herself is much stronger tactically now than Rybka 3.


Psycho.
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2009-10-18 13:59

>> Rybka herself is much stronger tactically now than Rybka 3.
> Psycho


That's Vas for you :)
Parent - - By M ANSARI (*****) Date 2009-10-18 15:13
I can see every other chess programmer out there roll their eyes.  Like Rybka 3 is not enough of a tactical beast :)
Parent - By InspectorGadget (*****) Date 2009-10-18 15:41

> I can see every other chess programmer out there roll their eyes.  Like Rybka 3 is not enough of a tactical beast :-)


Are you rubbing salt into the wound? :)
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2009-10-18 17:13
You know, I know, and you know that I know that that Rybka 3 is not enough of a tactical beast.
Parent - - By DamirD81 (***) Date 2009-10-18 17:29
Nelson, would you stop this bullshit talk of yours, it really makes no sence...
Parent - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2009-10-18 17:37
OK.
Parent - - By Lukas Cimiotti (Bronze) Date 2009-10-18 17:43
This is very, very true ;)
Parent - - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-18 22:16
You know it, because you have seen it. I know it without seeing it! :-)
But the tactical issue isn´t the only issue R3 lacks! I know at least one more! :-)
Parent - - By Lukas Cimiotti (Bronze) Date 2009-10-18 22:18
There is no Rybka 3 tactical issue. But there's always headroom to get even better.
Parent - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-18 22:37
Yes, I never asked for better tactical play of R3!
But I can give you an issue, where Rybka has to become better! Bad luck: Rybka avoids this issue by winning before this issue becomes relevant! :-)
So I´m waiting for better opponents for Rybka!
Parent - - By Carl Bicknell (*****) Date 2009-10-18 19:26

> I can see every other chess programmer out there roll their eyes.  Like Rybka 3 is not enough of a tactical beast <IMG alt=":-)" src="/mwf/epx.png" class="sic sic_sml_pos"/>


Yes. I think the other programs will be obsolete in a few months. Rybka 3 seems to win most of its games with tactics, Rybka 4 will barely need to play with any positional discernment: one tactical blow after another and all the flies will be dead.
Parent - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-18 22:17
And chess never will be solved! :-)
Parent - By Roland Rösler (****) Date 2009-10-18 22:25
You mean Cluster Rybka?
Not in 2009 and not in 2010!
This was the most remarkable information in this interview!

PS: R4 comes, when it is ready!
Parent - By RFK (Gold) Date 2009-10-20 06:42 Edited 2009-10-20 06:52
My God the two of them look really " strung out" in that pic!

You're worried about the availability of another version of Rybka?

I'd worry about whether Vas' brain hasn't turned to mush! You gotta wonder if they even know who they are!
- - By cghori (**) Date 2009-10-18 15:19
Why wait for Rybka 4? 

You can buy Fritz 12 NOW!
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 15:30
Because the engine is a piece of shit, even compared to Deep Fritz 11.
Parent - - By cghori (**) Date 2009-10-18 15:33
How do you know?
Parent - - By cghori (**) Date 2009-10-18 15:41
I wouln't call an engine with a rating of 2900+ a piece of sh__!
Parent - By Fulcrum2000 (****) Date 2009-10-18 15:42
Well, if it's opposition scores 3100 it is...
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 15:43
It's about 100 points weaker than the previous version on equal hardware! (4CPU)

Let's put it this way: if Rybka 4 were 100 points weaker than Rybka 3, I'd call it a piece of shit too.
Parent - - By cghori (**) Date 2009-10-18 15:45
2900 and 3100-does it really matter?  Still could beat 99% of the GMs in the world.
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 15:48

> Still could beat 99% of the GMs in the world.


No, 100%.

By that metric, all engines are worthless because there are free engines that are strong enough to do that.
Parent - - By grolich (***) Date 2009-10-18 16:55

> 2900 and 3100-does it really matter?  Still could beat 99% of the GMs in the world.


Yes.
I (and most people on this forum, as well as some other computer chess users) don't really want the engines as opponents to play against.
They are used as Analysis tools. For me, it's for analyzing games of mine. In that area, yes, 2900 and 3100 is a huge difference. Some engines are useful mostly in tactical blunders detection only. Nothing else. Many times when weaker programs were used, they fail to properly judge certain situations, and I have to spend hours to be certain if their judgement is correct. Ok, Rybka sometimes fails too, but a LOT less often.

That's the way me and many others use it.
Some others on this forum use it for correspondence chess, or advanced chess,
some use it for opening analysis and finding novelties.

For many years now no one is using the engines purely as playing partners ot play against. Almost pointless.
But for analysis there's a big difference.

If you want adjustable playing strength and controllable styles to play against, go with Chessmaster... None of the best commercial engines even tried to compete against it with that. The Rybka/Naum/Stockfish/Shredder/Hiarcs/Fritz/Junior etc. userbase usually use their engine/s for other reasons (Mainly analysis. Some for Correspondence/Advanced Chess).
Parent - By Carl Bicknell (*****) Date 2009-10-18 19:29

> In that area, yes, 2900 and 3100 is a huge difference.


YES. This is what loads of people don't understand. They're is a HUGE difference between 2900 and 3100 elo that a player 2000 elo can take advantage of in analysis of his games.
Parent - By tomgdrums (****) Date 2009-10-18 23:14
I actually do like to play against the different engines using adjustable strength.  That is why most of the free engines don't interest me.  It is also why I never purchased Naum.  I don't particularly enjoy online chess as it is hard to find long games.  Obviously I prefer OTB play but my schedule gets in the way so for me the answer is to play against the different engines at adjustable levels especially since they all play a little differently.  I of course use them for analysis as well.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2009-10-18 17:08
Dude!  You're new to this forum, aren't you?  Your comment is like...so...newbie!  Who cares about the GMs?  We're in the business of solving chess.  Won't happen in our lifetimes, but we're on that path.
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2009-10-18 18:12
Actually the path is so foggy and complicated, that the path for solving Chess the GMs are, is equivalent to the path that "you" are.
Parent - By Permanent Brain (*****) Date 2009-10-18 22:10
Who is satisfied with 2nd or 3rd best, even less if the costs are similar?

If you don't care for +/- 200 Elo of strength, you don't need to buy any engine, and not the newest quad cpu, and no 64-bit Windows, etc. Freeware, 32-bit on an average computer can beat 99% of the (otb.) GMs in the world, too. But that is not what top computer chess is about. If "99% GMs" would have been the ultimate goal, chess engine developement could have been stopped years ago. There is constant strength progress disregarding if even 100% of GMs lose. That is not the benchmark, the previous version and the other strong engines make the comparison.

E.g. a top correspondence player who wants to have good analysis tools, will certainly not be content with an engine 200 Elo weaker if he must assume that his opponents use the strongest. Same for the hardware. That's just one example why that matters.

Another aspect is to save time. With other factors being equal, a rather old engine might require like 5 or 10 times the calculation time for a certain chess strength, than a new top engine needs. I mean on same hardware! The engine software improvements which are found still, after so many years in PC chess (~20), are amazing...
Parent - By Aung (**) Date 2009-10-19 13:02
+1
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2009-10-18 16:04

>It's about 100 points weaker than the previous version on equal hardware! (4CPU)


That information is not correct and it is misleading.
Fritz 12 on 4 CPU is weaker than Deep Fritz 11 on 4 CPU by about 100 points in the CEGT list(ignoring the error ranges, etc) but one can also say that Fritz 12 on 1 CPU is weaker than Deep Fritz 11 on 1 CPU by about 8 points in CEGT list.

So the expression on equal hardware is misleading and may make people believe that it is also valid for 1 CPU(which isn't). You should have used the statement "on 4 CPU" and not "on equal hardware".
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 17:53

> You should have used the statement "on 4 CPU"


I did use it.

> and not "on equal hardware".


Bah. Single-CPU performance is only relevant on a netbook. Fritz 12 has nobody but its author(s) to blame for being crippled.
Parent - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 15:40
CEGT and CEGT.
Parent - By Arifur (**) Date 2009-10-18 15:44
Because there are lots of evidence. Just check out the test results of CEGT or CCRL. There are free engines which are at comparable strength as Fritz 12. And if you have a dual core or a quad core PC a free engine would be a better choice.
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2009-10-18 16:05

>Because the engine is a piece of shit, even compared to Deep Fritz 11.


What is your definition of "the engine is a piece of shit" ?
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 17:47

> What is your definition of "the engine is a piece of shit" ?


The following conditions must be met:

1. It costs money
2. It's weaker than <some arbitrary limit>. I don't have an infinite amount of money so my personal limit is the strongest free engine, currently Rybka 2.2n2. I picked Deep Fritz 11 to highlight how pathetic it is.

The engine being locked to its native GUI doesn't exactly improve my opinion of it.
Parent - - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2009-10-18 18:08 Edited 2009-10-18 18:26

>so my personal limit is the strongest free engine, currently Rybka 2.2n2.


As i see on CEGT 40/40 list Stockfish 1.5.1 64bit is stronger than the free Rybka 2.2.n2 64 bit.

Also how do you know that Fritz 12 is less strong than the free Stockfish 1.5.1 64 bit in playing against humans? I say that because some people may have that criterion of whether they should call a program a piece of shit or not a piece of shit. :-)
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 18:21

> As i see on CEGT 40/40 list Stockfish 1.5.1 64bit is stronger than the free Rybka 2.2.n2 64 bit.


*updates limit* Thanks.

> Also how do you know that Fritz 12 is less strong than the free Stockfish 1.5.1 64 bit in playing against humans? I say that because some people may have the criterion of whether they should call a program a piece of shit or not a piece of shit. :-)


My magic-8-ball says it is. :)
Parent - By Paddington (**) Date 2009-10-19 09:46 Edited 2009-10-19 09:50
Yes, free stockfish beats free rybka nearly every time. (Edit: On my pc, that is...)
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2009-10-18 18:41
It is brown and smells bad...
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) Date 2009-10-18 17:11
That's unkind.  The guys who put Fritz together have spent a fair percentage of their lifetimes trying to improve it.  If other engines are better, too bad for them, but we mustn't call their product "shit" as it is quite a remarkable achievement even if it ranks down the list.
Parent - By Bouddha (****) Date 2009-10-18 17:13
+1
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) Date 2009-10-18 17:56

> That's unkind.


Charging money for an engine that's weaker than Rybka 2.2n2 is unkind.
Parent - By George Tsavdaris (****) Date 2009-10-18 18:30 Edited 2009-10-18 18:33
Perhaps they don't charge money for the engine but only for the GUI, for the databases, for opening books etc....

But even if they charge money for the engine is not unkind because:
- they don't force people to buy but only giving them the chance to do it
- Fritz 12 has some areas where it plays better some positions than Rybka 2.2n2(and Stockfish 1.5.1). I mean no engine is perfect so each engine has some advantages over the other and strength at eng-eng games is not the only criterion for when an engine is good.

Also a person who uses 1 CPU and has a 32 bit operating system will most probably find Fritz 12 stronger from Rybka 2.2n2 32 bit in his computer at long time controls(look CEGT) so he would say different things from you and would disagree with your opinion.
- - By cghori (**) Date 2009-10-19 00:01
Isn't it illegal to use engines for correspondence chess? The players in theory would just be playing engine vs. engine.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Interview with Vasik Rajlich (Rybka)
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill