Is Rybka being Handicaped?

[AdminX]

I see this word "Handicap" being used often. The following are two quotes from a user on the Hiarcs forum and another from the Rybka forum.

It will have the added benefit of allowing them to compete effectively in non-handicap tournaments.

I assume there would be more participants without an handicap

There are many statements here and even on the Rybka forum that imply that people are trying to Handicap Rybka, where you see statements that use the word "Handicap"

To "Handicap" means to place at a disadvantage. So please explain how any advantage or disadvantage is being imposed when everyone has to play by the same rules. I don't see any one player being singled out here. I really like definition 2a. Does playing by the rules makes achievement unusually difficult for Rybka? I think we all know the the answer to this question is no.

Here is the Merriam-Webster Online definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handicap

1 a: a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning b: an advantage given or disadvantage imposed usually in the form of points, strokes, weight to be carried, or distance from the target or goal

2 a: a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult b sometimes offensive : a physical disability

[Uri Blass]

"There are many statements here and even on the Rybka forum that imply that people are trying to Handicap Rybka"

I do not agree with it.
The word handicap is not about handicapping rybka but about reducing the level of the tournament.

I guess that rybka's chances to win are bigger with the stupid limit of 8 cores because without the limit maybe another opponent can get a big hardware advantage to compensate for the software advantage of rybka and with the stupid limit there is no chance that it is going to happen.

Uri

[AdminX]

I guess that rybka's chances to win are bigger with the stupid limit of 8 cores because without the limit maybe another opponent can get a big hardware advantage to compensate for the software advantage of rybka and with the stupid limit there is no chance that it is going to happen.

Uri

The word handicap is not about handicapping rybka but about reducing the level of the tournament.

For once Uri, we do agree!

[gerold]

I would prefer using any computer in matches. However i do
see the point of some that wants to put a limit on computers
used. Some engines does not improve no matter the computer
used.
It will be fun to see how the match goes with a limit on computers.
Hope there won't be a limit on the books used.

Best to you,

Gerold.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

"There are many statements here and even on the Rybka forum that imply that people are trying to Handicap Rybka"

I do not agree with it.
The word handicap is not about handicapping rybka but about reducing the level of the tournament.

I guess that rybka's chances to win are bigger with the stupid limit of 8 cores because without the limit maybe another opponent can get a big hardware advantage to compensate for the software advantage of rybka and with the stupid limit there is no chance that it is going to happen.

Uri

I feel great joy when you use the word stupid Uri....I realy do,this is not irony....here it was mentioned twice
Dr.D

[Spock]

I believe the right word is PENALISED rather than handicapped

Vas developed a cluster version of Rybka, which was a very forward thinking and progressive strategy in the chess world. Then suddenly we get a hardware limit which stifles such innovation and forward-thinking development. The solution clearly is to have both hardware limited AND open tournaments. WCCC had the right idea, but the implementation was not ideal. I don't believe David Levy had in mind boxes costing maybe £5,000 when he set the 8-core limit.

So - handicap, perhaps not in the strict definition of the word, penalised yes, and maybe a bit of jealousy there too from some directions.

[bob]

I see this word "Handicap" being used often. The following are two quotes from a user on the Hiarcs forum and another from the Rybka forum.

It will have the added benefit of allowing them to compete effectively in non-handicap tournaments.

I assume there would be more participants without an handicap

There are many statements here and even on the Rybka forum that imply that people are trying to Handicap Rybka, where you see statements that use the word "Handicap"

To "Handicap" means to place at a disadvantage. So please explain how any advantage or disadvantage is being imposed when everyone has to play by the same rules. I don't see any one player being singled out here. I really like definition 2a. Does playing by the rules makes achievement unusually difficult for Rybka? I think we all know the the answer to this question is no.

Here is the Merriam-Webster Online definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handicap

1 a: a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning b: an advantage given or disadvantage imposed usually in the form of points, strokes, weight to be carried, or distance from the target or goal

2 a: a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult b sometimes offensive : a physical disability

Here is one answer to your question. I have no idea of how Rybka scales, either on a normal SMP machine or on a cluster, although for the cluster, based on discussions with Vas, I have a pretty good guestimate.

So how does someone "handicap" Rybka compared to others? If several have a really lousy parallel search, then they would willingly give it up if they could make _everyone_ give it up, since they are giving up "less" since theirs does not work so well.

That's been a continual theme for 40 years now. I can't do "that" while you "can" so I think nobody should be able to do "that" (whatever "that" is at the time, whether it be endgame tables, parallel search, using a cluster, using a huge custom-written book, or whatever).

[AdminX]

I see this word "Handicap" being used often. The following are two quotes from a user on the Hiarcs forum and another from the Rybka forum.

It will have the added benefit of allowing them to compete effectively in non-handicap tournaments.

I assume there would be more participants without an handicap

There are many statements here and even on the Rybka forum that imply that people are trying to Handicap Rybka, where you see statements that use the word "Handicap"

To "Handicap" means to place at a disadvantage. So please explain how any advantage or disadvantage is being imposed when everyone has to play by the same rules. I don't see any one player being singled out here. I really like definition 2a. Does playing by the rules makes achievement unusually difficult for Rybka? I think we all know the the answer to this question is no.

Here is the Merriam-Webster Online definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handicap

1 a: a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning b: an advantage given or disadvantage imposed usually in the form of points, strokes, weight to be carried, or distance from the target or goal

2 a: a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult b sometimes offensive : a physical disability

Here is one answer to your question. I have no idea of how Rybka scales, either on a normal SMP machine or on a cluster, although for the cluster, based on discussions with Vas, I have a pretty good guestimate.

So how does someone "handicap" Rybka compared to others? If several have a really lousy parallel search, then they would willingly give it up if they could make _everyone_ give it up, since they are giving up "less" since theirs does not work so well.

That's been a continual theme for 40 years now. I can't do "that" while you "can" so I think nobody should be able to do "that" (whatever "that" is at the time, whether it be endgame tables, parallel search, using a cluster, using a huge custom-written book, or whatever).

Hi Bob,

I swear, your answers always give me such deeper insight into these issues.

Thanks much for your reply.

[Uri Blass]

I believe the right word is PENALISED rather than handicapped

Vas developed a cluster version of Rybka, which was a very forward thinking and progressive strategy in the chess world. Then suddenly we get a hardware limit which stifles such innovation and forward-thinking development. The solution clearly is to have both hardware limited AND open tournaments. WCCC had the right idea, but the implementation was not ideal. I don't believe David Levy had in mind boxes costing maybe £5,000 when he set the 8-core limit.

So - handicap, perhaps not in the strict definition of the word, penalised yes, and maybe a bit of jealousy there too from some directions.

Vas is not the only person to develop a cluster version of his program so
I do not think that the rule reduced the chances of rybka to win.

Sjeng also developed a cluster version and maybe other programmers could use a cluster but prefered not to participate after the stupid rule that limited the number of cores to 8 cores.

If jealousy was the reason for the rule then the people who suggested it did a bad jon because I believe that they only increased rybka's chances to win.

Uri

[bob]

I see this word "Handicap" being used often. The following are two quotes from a user on the Hiarcs forum and another from the Rybka forum.

It will have the added benefit of allowing them to compete effectively in non-handicap tournaments.

I assume there would be more participants without an handicap

There are many statements here and even on the Rybka forum that imply that people are trying to Handicap Rybka, where you see statements that use the word "Handicap"

To "Handicap" means to place at a disadvantage. So please explain how any advantage or disadvantage is being imposed when everyone has to play by the same rules. I don't see any one player being singled out here. I really like definition 2a. Does playing by the rules makes achievement unusually difficult for Rybka? I think we all know the the answer to this question is no.

Here is the Merriam-Webster Online definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/handicap

1 a: a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning b: an advantage given or disadvantage imposed usually in the form of points, strokes, weight to be carried, or distance from the target or goal

2 a: a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult b sometimes offensive : a physical disability

Here is one answer to your question. I have no idea of how Rybka scales, either on a normal SMP machine or on a cluster, although for the cluster, based on discussions with Vas, I have a pretty good guestimate.

So how does someone "handicap" Rybka compared to others? If several have a really lousy parallel search, then they would willingly give it up if they could make _everyone_ give it up, since they are giving up "less" since theirs does not work so well.

That's been a continual theme for 40 years now. I can't do "that" while you "can" so I think nobody should be able to do "that" (whatever "that" is at the time, whether it be endgame tables, parallel search, using a cluster, using a huge custom-written book, or whatever).

Hi Bob,

I swear, your answers always give me such deeper insight into these issues.

Thanks much for your reply.

that's my job.

It isn't always about "hurting someone" as much as it is hurting everyone where you hurt yourself "less".