Anyone running out to buy R4 is a Jerk

[Albert Silver]

before this "clone controversy" , Rybka 3 was only useful for very strong players who do a lot of preparation /and correspondence players who use engines.
Most average players were better off with the default engines in their chess software

Rybka 3 is a complete rip off for chess novices and lower rated players because it gives the WRONG evaluation in many common chess positions.

this is a known fact that is swept aside by most who claim that all chess players even novices are aware of the blind bishop problem - they are not.
I cant believe the number of games i have seen when running my engine tests where this position is reached and Rybka stupidly thinks its winning in a dead draw ..
This bug alone make this engine unsuitable for all novices and weak players - a lot of whom have purchased rybka 3 and have no clue that the eval is wrong.

Additionally, even if you do know of the blind bishop situation -- weak players may be unable to figure out that rybka's overly optimistic eval is based on that a few moves earlier.

There are many extremely casual chess players who have very little chess knowledge who have purchased rybka 3 and trust its judgement completely - remember Rybka 3 was the World Champion for quite a while now.

Rybka 4 can be only be useful for a few if it is the strongest engine -- but if the bugs are not fixed -- why should most bother with it ?

Your prejudice is blinding you, as is visible from that utter nonsense.... As if most novices spent their time trying to analyze simplified endgames with the wrong bishop. Mind you, I agree it needs to be fixed, but seriously, how much Elo do you think that has cost Rybka 3 in its testing? Give me a ballpark figure.

[michiguel]

before this "clone controversy" , Rybka 3 was only useful for very strong players who do a lot of preparation /and correspondence players who use engines.
Most average players were better off with the default engines in their chess software

It the issue is learning chess, most average players will be better off reading a book... and I mean it.

Miguel
PS: or practicing with tactical problems.

Rybka 3 is a complete rip off for chess novices and lower rated players because it gives the WRONG evaluation in many common chess positions.

this is a known fact that is swept aside by most who claim that all chess players even novices are aware of the blind bishop problem - they are not.
I cant believe the number of games i have seen when running my engine tests where this position is reached and Rybka stupidly thinks its winning in a dead draw ..
This bug alone make this engine unsuitable for all novices and weak players - a lot of whom have purchased rybka 3 and have no clue that the eval is wrong.

Additionally, even if you do know of the blind bishop situation -- weak players may be unable to figure out that rybka's overly optimistic eval is based on that a few moves earlier.

There are many extremely casual chess players who have very little chess knowledge who have purchased rybka 3 and trust its judgement completely - remember Rybka 3 was the World Champion for quite a while now.

Rybka 4 can be only be useful for a few if it is the strongest engine -- but if the bugs are not fixed -- why should most bother with it ?

[alpha123]

before this "clone controversy" , Rybka 3 was only useful for very strong players who do a lot of preparation /and correspondence players who use engines.
Most average players were better off with the default engines in their chess software

Rybka 3 is a complete rip off for chess novices and lower rated players because it gives the WRONG evaluation in many common chess positions.

this is a known fact that is swept aside by most who claim that all chess players even novices are aware of the blind bishop problem - they are not.
I cant believe the number of games i have seen when running my engine tests where this position is reached and Rybka stupidly thinks its winning in a dead draw ..
This bug alone make this engine unsuitable for all novices and weak players - a lot of whom have purchased rybka 3 and have no clue that the eval is wrong.

Additionally, even if you do know of the blind bishop situation -- weak players may be unable to figure out that rybka's overly optimistic eval is based on that a few moves earlier.

There are many extremely casual chess players who have very little chess knowledge who have purchased rybka 3 and trust its judgement completely - remember Rybka 3 was the World Champion for quite a while now.

Rybka 4 can be only be useful for a few if it is the strongest engine -- but if the bugs are not fixed -- why should most bother with it ?

Your prejudice is blinding you, as is visible from that utter nonsense.... As if most novices spent their time trying to analyze simplified endgames with the wrong bishop. Mind you, I agree it needs to be fixed, but seriously, how much Elo do you think that has cost Rybka 3 in its testing? Give me a ballpark figure.

It actually GAINED about +0.2ish elo.

Peter

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

...Vasik has proved to be the worst ever author of a commercial chess engine regarding his actions toward the customers in many aspects... Dr.D

Your hyperbole opinions are so absurd in my universe they almost end up funny, really.

-HEM

It's your opinion and it's your world....I respect that....
Dr.D

[frcha]

As if most novices spent their time trying to analyze simplified endgames with the wrong bishop. Mind you, I agree it needs to be fixed, but seriously, how much Elo do you think that has cost Rybka 3 in its testing? Give me a ballpark figure.

I have seen novices do this -- of course they are entitled to waste their money how they see fit -- but I'm just pointing out that Rybka is not a good "authority" on good moves /eval -- in fact a free engine like Toga suits them much better.

If Rybka 3 gained ELO by not fixing this bug, how come the so called clone which fixed the bug has more ELO?

Most likely they could not be bothered fixing it and released Rybka as is.

[Albert Silver]

As if most novices spent their time trying to analyze simplified endgames with the wrong bishop. Mind you, I agree it needs to be fixed, but seriously, how much Elo do you think that has cost Rybka 3 in its testing? Give me a ballpark figure.

I have seen novices do this -- of course they are entitled to waste their money how they see fit -- but I'm just pointing out that Rybka is not a good "authority" on good moves /eval -- in fact a free engine like Toga suits them much better.

If Rybka 3 gained ELO by not fixing this bug, how come the so called clone which fixed the bug has more ELO?

Most likely they could not be bothered fixing it and released Rybka as is.

Wel, I won't argue since your comments clearly show a complete disregard for objectivity ("they are entitled to waste their money"), which means you are not open to dialogue.

As to the clones being stronger due to that.... that was pretty funny.