Vas Rajlich Video...

[Leto]

I disagree as this increase in Rybka's strength has been methodically linear and if anything, Rybka's real strength jump seems to be in Rybka 3 and not Rybka 1.0 beta.

It astonishes me how you are able to disregard facts completely, as if you lived in a dream and want the others dream with you.

Here is an excerpt from CCRL blitz:

Code: Select all

Rybka 3 64-bit          3176	
Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit     3072	
Rybka 2.2n2 64-bit      3025	
Rybka 1.1 64-bit	     2989
Rybka 1.0 Beta 64-bit	2938

It is clear that Rybka 3 jumped 100 elos from Rybka 2, and roughly 240 elos relative to 1.0 beta. This jump took 3 years.
The beta is at least 700 elo stronger than the Rybka from 2004. The increase took 1 year.

You call this linear.

What is this Rybka engine that is 700 elo weaker than Rybka 1 called, and where can I obtain it?

Here in CCT6

No Name Feder Rtg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Hiarcs, 2812 28:W 16:W 10:L 20:D 34:W 13:W 15:W 9:W 3: D
2. Junior, 2701 29:D 7:W 14:W 5:L 38:W 19:W 16:W 3: D 9: D
3. Crafty, 2607 30:W 20:W 12:W 10:D 8:W 9:W 21:D 2: D 1: D
53. Rybka, 2000 26:L 38:L 46:L 48:D 43:D 47:L 44:L 54:W 45:D
54. Tohno, 1800 27:L 37:L 17:L 49:L 47:L 48:L 43:L 53:L 50:L

In this game it looks like Rybka 2004 lost on time in a drawn position:

(54) Amyan (2200) - Rybka (1735) [B86]
CCT6 45 10 Internet Chess Club (2), 31.01.2004




1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.Qe1 Nbd7 10.f3 Ne5 11.Qg3 Nxd3 12.cxd3 Rc8 13.Be3 b4 14.Nd1 Nh5 15.Qe1 e5 16.Qxb4 exd4 17.Qxb7 dxe3 18.Nxe3 Nf4 19.Qxa6 Be7 20.Nf5 g6 21.Nxe7 Kxe7 22.Rf2 Qc7 23.d4 Rhe8 24.Qa3 Qb6 25.Qe3 g5 26.Rd2 Rc4 27.Re1 h6 28.Qf2 Rec8 29.h4 Qa5 30.a3 Rc2 31.Red1 Rxd2 32.Rxd2 Ng6 33.Re2 gxh4 34.d5 Qb5 35.Rc2 Rxc2 36.Qxc2 Qa5 37.Kh2 Qb6 38.b4 Kf8 39.Qc6 Qd8 40.Qc1 Kg7 41.b5 Kh7 42.a4 Qa5 43.Qc8 Qd2 44.b6 Qb2 45.a5 Kg7 46.Qf5 Black forfeits on time 1-0


8/5pk1/1P1p2np/P2P1Q2/4P2p/5P2/1q4PK/8 b - - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3 x64 4CPU:
46...Qb5 47.f4 Qxa5 48.b7 Qb6 49.Qc8 Qb3 50.b8Q
= (0.00) Depth: 26 00:03:35 61790kN


Looks like Rybka 2004 also lost its third round game by a time bug, this time in a perhaps winning position:

(81) Rybka (1735) - Chiron (2224) [E91]
CCT6 45 10 Internet Chess Club (3), 31.01.2004

1.c4 g6 2.e4 Bg7 3.d4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.d5 e6 8.0-0 Re8 9.Nd2 Na6 10.Kh1 Qc7 11.Qb3 Bd7 12.f4 exd5 13.cxd5 Rab8 14.Re1 b5 15.Qd1 b4 16.Ncb1 Qc8 17.Bd3 Ng4 18.Re2 f5 19.h3 c4 20.Bxc4 fxe4 21.hxg4 Bxg4 22.Qf1 Bxe2 23.Bxe2 Nc7 24.Nb3 Kh8 25.Bc4 Qf5 26.Qe2 Nxd5 27.g4 Nxf4 28.gxf5 Nxe2 29.Bxe2 gxf5 30.N1d2 f4 31.Bg4 e3 32.Nf3 d5 33.Ne1 Rb6 34.Kg2 Re4 35.Nd3 Rc4 36.Kf3 Rf6 37.Nbc5 Rc2 38.Nd7 Rf7 39.Be6 Re7 40.N7c5 d4 41.Bb3 Rh2 42.Ne6 Rh3+ 43.Kg4 Rg3+ White forfeits on time 0-1

7k/p3r1bp/4N3/8/1p1p1pK1/1B1Np1r1/PP6/R1B5 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Rybka 3 x64 4CPU:
44.Kxf4 Rg1 45.Kf3 Rf7+ 46.Ndf4 Bh6 47.Bc4 Rg6 48.Ke4 Rg4[] 49.Be2 Rh4 50.Kxd4 Bxf4 51.Nxf4 Rfxf4+ 52.Kxe3 Kg7 53.Bd2 Rf6 54.Rg1+ Rg6 55.Rd1 h5 56.Bc1 Rf6 57.Rd5 Rh1 58.Rg5+ Kf8 59.Rc5
+/= (0.53) Depth: 20 00:01:47 32023kN

[Alexander Schmidt]

In this game it looks like Rybka 2004 lost on time in a drawn position:

It was also tested in some private rating lists, with the same results.

Maybe you can find it somewhere on chesswar, I don't remember others.

[Matthias Gemuh]

In this game it looks like Rybka 2004 lost on time in a drawn position:

It was also tested in some private rating lists, with the same results.

Maybe you can find it somewhere on chesswar, I don't remember others.

I think it was "Systeme du Suisse".

.

[Steve B]

In this game it looks like Rybka 2004 lost on time in a drawn position:

It was also tested in some private rating lists, with the same results.

Maybe you can find it somewhere on chesswar, I don't remember others.

I think it was "Systeme du Suisse".

.

The Wiki Entry for Rybka makes no mention of the Engine before its Release in Dec 2005
actually i never rely too much on Wiki myself(for any subject)because the info can be very spotty at times
the Rybka entry for example,, makes no mention of the two odds matches it played against GM Joel Benjamin..one of which i co-sponsored

however this might be of interest to some members
this site is an archive of CCC posts before the change over to the new forum software(March 06) we use now
by inserting a search term someone with a little patience might be able to find some info on Rybka before 2005

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/

for example..
by entering the search term ..CCT
this interesting Thread started by Anthony Cozzie in Feb 2005 popped up ..
notice the reply by Vas in the thread
http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=410729



Steve

[Rolf]

"NH: What chess engines in public domain when you got started had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?
VR: Well, actually, I started in kind of a strange way. I printed out just about every single paper there was to print out about computer chess—all of these academic papers.
"

He should have printed those papers a year earlier - then 2004 Rybka would not have been 600 elo weaker... obviously, Fruit 2.1 source code gave him the idea.

I disagree,

1) because Vas denied that (Fruit gave him 20 Elo points)

2) because a totally different explanation is at hand based on what Cozzie had detected. I'm a lay, but as I understood he insinuated that the art of programming itself led to the strength - not spectacularly new ideas.

3) Now for the coding art Vas had been working on after MIT for three years, always eagerly looking on the chess issue but mainly training on coding. in 2005 he had it all together with ease and then topped his own standard with the famous 250 up until Rybka 3.

Ok, I am no criminalist but actually I see absolutely nothing that stands against Vas other than insults and unjustified accusations. Even the so telling 2004 low Elo is no wonder after less than a year. If Vas would have had 2600 in 2004 (see MAnsari, if Vas had just taken Crafty as his basis, which would have been allowed!!) THEN you all would have a case but NOT on the base of the data and suspicions you are elaborating here. Sorry.

All the best to all and please just lets not dig deeper in this nonsense that is insulting all of our intelligence. Let's come back to normal friendliness between all programmers except anonymous and cloners out of passion.

Rolf

[Alexander Schmidt]

I found that one via google:

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=438846

[slobo]

"NH: What chess engines in public domain when you got started had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?
VR: Well, actually, I started in kind of a strange way. I printed out just about every single paper there was to print out about computer chess—all of these academic papers.
"

He should have printed those papers a year earlier - then 2004 Rybka would not have been 600 elo weaker... obviously, Fruit 2.1 source code gave him the idea.

I disagree,

1) because Vas denied that (Fruit gave him 20 Elo points)

2) because a totally different explanation is at hand based on what Cozzie had detected. I'm a lay, but as I understood he insinuated that the art of programming itself led to the strength - not spectacularly new ideas.

3) Now for the coding art Vas had been working on after MIT for three years, always eagerly looking on the chess issue but mainly training on coding. in 2005 he had it all together with ease and then topped his own standard with the famous 250 up until Rybka 3.

Ok, I am no criminalist but actually I see absolutely nothing that stands against Vas other than insults and unjustified accusations. Even the so telling 2004 low Elo is no wonder after less than a year. If Vas would have had 2600 in 2004 (see MAnsari, if Vas had just taken Crafty as his basis, which would have been allowed!!) ...
Rolf

Why do you think that taking Crafty as the basis of one's own engine, and get commecial, is allowed?

[gerold]

"NH: What chess engines in public domain when you got started had the biggest influence on the earliest versions of Rybka?
VR: Well, actually, I started in kind of a strange way. I printed out just about every single paper there was to print out about computer chess—all of these academic papers.
"



Sorry, but me as a programmer, reading that a programmer learned how to develop a chess engine reading papers really made me laugh, and laugh out loud.

Even the dumbest doesn't drink that silliness !

I can understand his reasons, but if I were in him I would eventually asked the interviewer to put that question in the "forbidden questions list"....a list that, reading the whole interview, it seems to me it was far from empty anyway

Anyhow happy new year to everybody and to Rybka's author too !

Happy new year to you,
This interview kind of shows who Vas is. No surprise.
At one point he say something like soon or in 15 years
chess will be at a limit and into draw nature. hahahha.

[Rolf]

Why do you think that taking Crafty as the basis of one's own engine, and get commecial, is allowed?

Quoting the argument from MAnsari.

[slobo]

Why do you think that taking Crafty as the basis of one's own engine, and get commecial, is allowed?

Quoting the argument from MAnsari.

His citation was not correct, or, if you preffer: it does not give any answer to my quaetion. So, please, answer it with your own words.