Whether Rybka 4 Should Be Allowed To Play At the WCCC?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.

Whether Rybka 4 Should Be Allowed To Play At the WCCC?

Rybka 4 is a derivative program and should be banned from the WCCC
58
51%
Rybka 4 is an original program and should not be banned from the WCCC
55
49%
 
Total votes: 113

Sean Evans
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Moderation

Post by Sean Evans » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:12 pm

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Sean Evans wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:

A caveat:
There is enough similarity in some algorithms of Rybka 1.0 that I think it would not be unreasonable for any governing body that chooses to consider Rybka 1.0 a derivative of Fruit and ban it from certain competitions. That would, of course, be up to their judgement.
Dan why would you be against the WCCC judges from performing a derivative test on Rybka 4? It is right in the rules that they are allowed! I mean a real derivative test, not just does R4 make the identical moves as Fruit.

Cordially,

Sean
If any other competitor was going to make an official complaint to the ICGA about Rybka it probably should have been done when Rybka 1st entered the WCCC. I doubt they would consider a complaint several years later. Fabien has never complained and Fruit and Rybka have both competed in the same event.

I also doubt that any commercial author would submit their source if asked to.
There is nothing in the rules that says a fellow competitor has to request a derivative test. In addition, if Rybka 4 is not turned over when requested then they are out of the tourney and guess what happens in the Internet rumour mill :lol:

Cordially,

Sean

Dann Corbit
Posts: 11908
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Dann Corbit » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:13 pm

Sean Evans wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:

A caveat:
There is enough similarity in some algorithms of Rybka 1.0 that I think it would not be unreasonable for any governing body that chooses to consider Rybka 1.0 a derivative of Fruit and ban it from certain competitions. That would, of course, be up to their judgement.
Dan why would you be against the WCCC judges from performing a derivative test on Rybka 4? It is right in the rules that they are allowed! I mean a real derivative test, not just does R4 make the identical moves as Fruit.

Cordially,

Sean
I am neither for nor against that. Whatever they choose to do is fine with me.

User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Newport. Shropshire, UK.
Full name: Harvey Williamson
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Harvey Williamson » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:17 pm

Sean Evans wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Sean Evans wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:

A caveat:
There is enough similarity in some algorithms of Rybka 1.0 that I think it would not be unreasonable for any governing body that chooses to consider Rybka 1.0 a derivative of Fruit and ban it from certain competitions. That would, of course, be up to their judgement.
Dan why would you be against the WCCC judges from performing a derivative test on Rybka 4? It is right in the rules that they are allowed! I mean a real derivative test, not just does R4 make the identical moves as Fruit.

Cordially,

Sean
If any other competitor was going to make an official complaint to the ICGA about Rybka it probably should have been done when Rybka 1st entered the WCCC. I doubt they would consider a complaint several years later. Fabien has never complained and Fruit and Rybka have both competed in the same event.

I also doubt that any commercial author would submit their source if asked to.
There is nothing in the rules that says a fellow competitor has to request a derivative test. In addition, if Rybka 4 is not turned over when requested then they are out of the tourney and guess what happens in the Internet rumour mill :lol:

Cordially,

Sean
If you really think they will accept a complaint from a non-competitor then go ahead and make one. I am 100% sure it will be rejected. As for the internet rumour mill a few people on a forum have almost no effect on sales.

I suspect that before asking for the source they would take into account that Fabien says he does not care.

Milos
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Moderation

Post by Milos » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:20 pm

Harvey Williamson wrote:As for the internet rumour mill a few people on a forum have almost no effect on sales.
Sure they don't, in the same as appearance of Ippo doesn't have :lol: :lol: :lol: .

User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Newport. Shropshire, UK.
Full name: Harvey Williamson
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Harvey Williamson » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:22 pm

Milos wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:As for the internet rumour mill a few people on a forum have almost no effect on sales.
Sure they don't, in the same as appearance of Ippo doesn't have :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Do you really think many customers of Rybka or Fritz have heard of these engines? a few % at most.

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Steve B » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:29 pm

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Milos wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:As for the internet rumour mill a few people on a forum have almost no effect on sales.
Sure they don't, in the same as appearance of Ippo doesn't have :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Do you really think many customers of Rybka or Fritz have heard of these engines? a few % at most.
Actually this is not a surprise but its good to hear you confirm this Harvey
last year when the Prior mod team made the tough decision to allow links to Ippo... late in their term .. i personally got PM's and Emails foretelling the demise of computer chess as we now know it
Commercial Engine authors would be falling by the way side
we were guilty of taking the food out from the very mouths of their children
as far as i can tell several commercial authors have not only survived but released major upgrades to their engines and we have even seen new commercial engines come on the market

Regards
Steve

User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Newport. Shropshire, UK.
Full name: Harvey Williamson
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Harvey Williamson » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:32 pm

Steve B wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Milos wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:As for the internet rumour mill a few people on a forum have almost no effect on sales.
Sure they don't, in the same as appearance of Ippo doesn't have :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Do you really think many customers of Rybka or Fritz have heard of these engines? a few % at most.
Actually this is not a surprise but its good to hear you confirm this Harvey
last year when the Prior mod team made the tough decision to allow links to Ippo... late in their term .. i personally got PM's and Emails foretelling the demise of computer chess as we now know it
Commercial Engine authors would be falling by the way side
as far as i can tell several commercial authors have not only survived but released major upgrades to their engines and we have even seen new commercial engines come on the market

Regards
Steve
I chose Fritz and Rybka deliberately. I think the effect on those that sell directly on the web is probably very different. Which new commercial engines are you thinking of?

Steve B
Posts: 3697
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Steve B » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:38 pm

Harvey Williamson wrote:
Steve B wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:
Milos wrote:
Harvey Williamson wrote:As for the internet rumour mill a few people on a forum have almost no effect on sales.
Sure they don't, in the same as appearance of Ippo doesn't have :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Do you really think many customers of Rybka or Fritz have heard of these engines? a few % at most.
Actually this is not a surprise but its good to hear you confirm this Harvey
last year when the Prior mod team made the tough decision to allow links to Ippo... late in their term .. i personally got PM's and Emails foretelling the demise of computer chess as we now know it
Commercial Engine authors would be falling by the way side
as far as i can tell several commercial authors have not only survived but released major upgrades to their engines and we have even seen new commercial engines come on the market

Regards
Steve
I chose Fritz and Rybka deliberately. I think the effect on those that sell directly on the web is probably very different. Which new commercial engines are you thinking of?
Still no engine authors had to give up and change careers because of our Ippo linkeage ..

but i know your job has been made tougher on the Chessbase server

isnt Komodo a new commerical engine?


Sigh Regards
Steve

User avatar
Harvey Williamson
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Newport. Shropshire, UK.
Full name: Harvey Williamson
Contact:

Re: Moderation

Post by Harvey Williamson » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:21 am

Steve B wrote: isnt Komodo a new commerical engine?


Sigh Regards
Steve
no

Sean Evans
Posts: 1777
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Moderation

Post by Sean Evans » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:41 am

https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html

Rybka's evaluation has been the subject of much speculation ever since its appearance. Various theories have been put forth about the inner workings of the evaluation, but with the publication of Strelka, it was shown just how wrong everyone was. It is perhaps ironic that Rybka's evaluation is its most similar part to Fruit; it contains, in my opinion, the most damning evidence of all.

Locked