You didn't keep the promise. According to results which have been posted, R3 is an IDIOT in blind bishop positions. I will remember this for future versions & promises. I will never expect that any of your announcements are reliable.
2. You call a primitive, non-specific randomized eval function "Monte Carlo Analysis" which is a JOKE compared to true, scientific MC. approaches. Shame on you. You fail to respect serious approaches to forward board game software strategies, by calling a rediculously stupid feature "Monte Carlo Analysis" which doesn't deserve this name.
3. You enter a top computer chess competition but you don't know about particular problems of an up-to-date CPU. That tells me that Rybka has NOT been tested on a variety of different computers, with different CPUs etc. which is a VERY SIMPLE BASIC REQUIREMENT for any mass market software! Quality assurance is absolutely required if you don't want to sell a piece of crap.
You failed all these tests, 1, 2 and 3.
Rybka 3 is NOT an acceptable product in terms of quality, and not in terms of taking care for the customer.
I have understood (as somebody who can read between the lines) that commercial success is NOT your main goal anyway. But it is NOT FAIR to keep this dedication secret. Vas, speak the truth. What are you going for? I think you do NOT care for anything what a normal chess player, your customer, may want. You do NOT care for details which do not bring Elo points. You do NOT keep promises like putting the blind bishop knowledge back in.
Are you sure that commercial computer chess software business, where the CUSTOMER should be the main factor and not the programmer, is really your best environment to work in? My impression is that you are much too careless and too sloppy.
I can live very good without Rybka.
You got to be joking! A 3250+ ELO program is an "IDIOT"?. A program rated 200-300+ higher than its next highest competitor? A program that others try to reverse engineer? A program that trumps even its previous version by no less than +200 ELO points. You my friend sorry to say are the "IDIOT" not the program.
"You call a primitive, non-specific randomized eval function "Monte Carlo Analysis" which is a JOKE compared to true, scientific MC. approaches. Shame on you. You fail to respect serious approaches to forward board game software strategies, by calling a rediculously stupic feature "Monte Carlo Analysis" which doesn't deserve this name."
And you would know in fact what Scientific Monte Carlo Analysis was because you looked it up for 5 mins on Wikipedia? You haven't the right nor the jurisdiction to levy out insults to Vas and Larry. When you learn of all the work they have done you can talk(just kidding we don't want to hear it)but until then go home.
You my friend have just hurt your own credibility and our intelligence and quite frankly the hate of millions of happy rybka fanboys so it is you who have failed so now it's time to hang your head low and just go and please don't let the door hit you in the "%$#" out the door.
> A 3250+ ELO program is an "IDIOT"?.
I was talking about a particular situation, not about an average from all positions.
Btw., what about other flaws in 2.3.2a which have been detected in comparison to 2.2? RESPECT FOR THE CUSTOMER means that there is
1. Clear documentation about all these flaws and how they have been fixed for Rybka 3, and
2. a set of examples with engine output from Rybka 3, to prove this points.
These are VERY SIMPLE REQUIREMENTS any newbie of software distribution and serious(!) advertisement will understand.
Rybka's developement, quality assurance and advertisement is NOT PROFESSIONAL.
"Rybka's developement, quality assurance and advertisement is NOT PROFESSIONAL"
Those things could of course be better but their resources are limited.
How many employees are programming the engine? Only one isnt it, not a whole team?
So it is really understandable that compromises need to be done, even though they can be painful.
It is my feeling that the development of Rybka is of the highest standard. I dont know the definition of monte carlo analyzis. I would think that this could be called monte carlo analyzis. Just a very rough one.
The fact is that on 05/01/2006 I received from Vasik Rajlich
a message with links to download Rybka 1 Beta until Rybka 1.2.
What impresses me is that today similar message will be send by Convekta,
and we will receive a DVD by Chessbase and Convekta, and Vasik Rajlich continues
selling his software through the Rybka site.
It seems to me that an opening book never was sold without the engine, another novelty.
The most incredible is that I bought the same engine two times, one from Convekta
and one from Chessbase. I also bought Jeroen opening book.
In your opinion, what could happen if they were professional?
"Rybka's developement, quality assurance and advertisement is NOT PROFESSIONAL" are not the words of you but a quote from the post you responded to.
I am not sure if I understood the discussion and I may be wrong but
it seems to me that paulo thought that these are the words of you and you thought that he criticized rybka for not being professional and both of you are wrong.
I wonder why some people are making fun out of your post. No wonder someone called the forum the "unwashed nuckle-dragging masses.."
Someone must really look at these things for customer satisfaction.
He didn't say the program was an idiot--he said that it was an idiot in evaluating that specific type of endgame. Opponents can take advantage of this knowledge and thus tune opening books to lead to it, so it is a potentially major problem. Also, the program is nowhere near having a true Elo level of 3250 calibrated to FIDE--perhaps 3150 on a Skulltrail is more like it.
He is also correct that this is nothing like Monte Carlo analysis as the term is used in computer simulations. It aims to do much better than that, but due to the nature of chess, I think that the result is a bit worse. True Monte Carlo analysis will give the absolute truth of a particular result, and the only way this can even be closely approximated is if all of the lines with results that can be avoided are tossed out of the situation, among many other things.
On the other hand, ALL engines are going to have problems and certain types of positions they play extremely poorly. We see them as more apparent with Rybka because it is probably studied by more intelligent people on a higher level and in a larger variety of situations than any chess engine or system in history.
>Actually, the points he brought up are quite correct and valid.
Is his 3rd point valid??
Did Vas ought to know the bug on the AMD Phenom PCs??
Also one of the reasons Mike(Permanent Brain) said he would not buy Rybka is that Vas didn't know about the bug in Phenoms(so that means he does not test in many different hardware, so he is no real professional, etc)
And what about SMK? Did he know about the bug? Apparently not. But Mike said he bought Shredder 11.
Don't you see some kind of contradiction here?
>He didn't say the program was an idiot--he said that it was an idiot in evaluating that specific type of endgame. Opponents can take advantage >of this knowledge and thus tune opening books to lead to it, so it is a potentially major problem.
I would be extremely surprised if that could be true.
I bet that no book cooker can even manage to lead to such endgame with his lines in 1 out of 1000 games.
Opening from endgame is far away and no book creator can control the type of endgame that would be played.
I would personally don't like to wait more about the release of Rybka 3 for fixing this bug if it takes more than a week.
You would be surprised what Chessbase answered me of the cause of the delay(i'll give it to you with PM) and i wouldn't like even more delay.
And after all, there is one word called: "UPDATE".
Vas said there would be no updates to Rybka 3 but surely if he breaks that word, no one would be unhappy about that unfulfilled promise. :-)
As for opening book cookers, I think that all that is required is a titled player who is very well-rounded in opening theory to exploit this hole.
I didn't mean the there should be a "programming around" this bug but that Convekta should do prerelease testing (incl. benchmarking) on current CPUs and OS, like Phenom+Vista SP1. I want to point to the logical assumption that without the Chess960 tournament in Mainz, it would be some the individual Phenom + Rybka users who have this problem, at least those who are not familiar with the TLB bug.
> Vas said there would be no updates to Rybka 3 but surely if he breaks that word, no one would be unhappy about that unfulfilled promise. :-)
Yes... but also, I could add that "no updates" announcement to my list of critical points.
He isn't being too intelligent right now. Since he is IN-FACT instigating a flame war, not being at all fair to the man-hours put into Rybka and on top of it all being a big cry-baby.
Of course, the big gain of playing strength is a great achievement. I didn't doubt that hard and good work has been done; that's obvious.
But if the analysis in a blind bishop position is wrong (i.e. suggesting a move which spoils a win), then it doesn't matter if the rest is +200 Elo or whatever. Rybka 2.3.2a also had flaws in some pawn endings. I am insecure about what to expect from Rybka 3 now, related to that.
I would have expected that the developers had collected all these examples, as posted here and elsewhere, to cross-check the fixes/improvements one by one, and provide examples of them in a short "What's new" documentation. This is NOT something to be left over for some Rybka fans to do for fun, after the release. It should be done by the developers and/or other team member, BEFORE the release, including publishing all relevant examples.
Maybe I expect too much? But to me, this seem very obvious steps to do, for the release of a new software version.
In chess software, one advantage is that once particular improvements have been done (where it's not about playing hundreds of games to find a higher Elo) , they can be easily demonstrated by comparing old/new in the same positions.
How are you so certain that your assumptions are correct before you have see the finished
product? Did you have a beta version or the final release before it was released? I would be
more angry about that if this were true? :) And, even if all you say is true, how do you know
what the authors circumstances were before this release? It seems to me that they are in time
pressure and making last minute changes before release. This, for a "software professional",
(which I am by the way), is more concerning. This might backfire more than a missing requirement
that couldn't make the release. I cetainly hope that the support for Rybka 3 will be as good
as the program itself!
It's like someone hijacked your password for Rybkaforum. :-)
>1. At least a half dozen times, it has been promised that the endgame knowledge which was removed from Rybka 2.2 to 2.3.2a (the most >stupid, weirdest decison in computer chess history) will be BACK in Rybka 3.
Why do you believe it was the most stupid decision? Perhaps the removal gave to Rybka some ELO points and if they haven't been removed then it may play better in some endgames but the overall loss would be higher.
>You didn't keep the promise. According to results which have been posted, R3 is an IDIOT in blind bishop positions. I will remember this for >future versions & promises. I will never expect that any of your announcements are reliable.
I would agree with you if you remind me and show the promise that the knowledge would be back in the Rybka 3 version.
>2. You call a primitive, non-specific randomized eval function "Monte Carlo Analysis" which is a JOKE compared to true, scientific MC. approaches. >Shame on you. You fail to respect serious approaches to forward board game software strategies, by calling a rediculously stupic feature >"Monte Carlo Analysis" which doesn't deserve this name.
Why do you think it does not deserve the name?
I agree it's not the true Monte Carlo method or anyway anything particularly groundbreaking, but still it may be useful and the name is not important i think.
>3. You enter a top computer chess competition but you don't know about particular problems of an up-to-date CPU. That tells me that Rybka >has NOT been tested on a variety of different computers, with different CPUs etc. which is a VERY SIMPLE BASIC REQUIREMENT for any mass >market software! Quality assurance is absolutely required if you don't want to sell a piece of crap.
As far as i can tell all the other 3 programmers didn't know about the bug in AMD computer either.
In fact why Vasik should have known about it i can't find any reason.
Also your implication that for this reason Rybka hasn't been tested on many different computers, is not a correct one obviously.
It may not have been tested in many different but it will not be due to the reason you said.
>Rybka 3 is NOT an acceptable product in terms of quality, and not in terms of taking care for the customer.
Then you should not buy it if you believe this.
If you set your standards of the quality of a Chess program to be characterized by:
-It can't recognize blind Bishop draws.
-It has a unique feature that no other program has it, but the name is not appropriate!
-The programmer of the engine does not know about all bugs of all different PCs.
Then be my guest to believe that a program to be good has to pass the above 3 tests.
I have other standards it seems, and the above facts i consider them pointless except the first which needs to be fixed.
>Are you sure that commercial computer chess software busineness, where the CUSTOMER should be the main factor and not the programmer, is >really your best environment to work in? My impression is that you are much too careless and too sloppy.
So what do you suggest him to do?
I have one question have the reported KNs and depth been corrected for R3? I am sure it was promised somewhere that this would happen.
>Yes, I also recall that it was definitely stated that this would be corrected at the end.
Corrected to what?
As i recall Vasik supports that the nodes searched by the child processes are not counted so that's the reason for the low node count.
Why do you want them to be counted these child nodes also?
About depth, if the actual is equal to reported minus 2(or 3) then it should be fixed of course as i see no real reason not to report the correct depth.
If Vasik of course believes there is a reason then i don't see anything bad with not correcting it.
>then it should be fixed of course as i see no real reason not to report the correct depth.
Aha! But VR and LK have not been unknown (err, perhaps I shouldn't use this circumlocutory verbiage with non-native speakers) to promote the idea that there is no such thing as a "correct depth"... :-P
>As i recall Vasik supports that the nodes searched by the child processes are not counted so that's the reason for the low node count.
I don't recall this exactly. My recollection was that there was some renormalising (of the already subterfuged) node counts in the MP version, so as to estimate better the "real speed-up". For instance, rather than given 4 times the number of "nodes" searched by one CPU, the display would be something like 3.6 times this (see link below, with the "expected benefits').
>Rybka 2.3 counts nodes differently on multi-processor machines.
>Rybka 2.1 (and also other engines) just count nodes from all children, whether those nodes are useful or not.
>Rybka 2.3 counts only the parent-process nodes, and adds the expected benefits of having "X" child processes. This lets you compare nodes-per-second rates between machines with a different number of cores.
>The problem of course is a psychological one - many users will think that the engine isn't able to exploit the multiple processes properly. It might be better to just count all nodes by default, and allow expert users to choose the 2.3-style scaling.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill