shame on toga authors

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Though rybka wins many of its games, it's style lacks luster (kramnik like) and so no one cares. Not to mention that it is commercial. So when I lose I just say "oh, it should have won anyway" but Toga wins with style

Agreed. Currently, Toga Chekov is the second most aggressive engine that I have (even more aggressive than Loop!), second only to Shredder 10, but it plays stronger! So Toga wins in the aggressiveness/strength ratio.

I only hope that Rybka 3 will have some amazing playing style (because, I'm willing to buy it.)

Totally agree!
Maybe only Junior is more agressive than the new toga, few days ago, I run a small test with wild gambits, Toga II 3.1.2SE vs Rybka 1.0 chet this 2 games,
[Event "Rybka Toga, Blitz:4'+2""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.01.19"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Toga II 3.1.2SE"]
[Black "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B20"]
[PlyCount "81"]

{W=12.1 ply; 644kN/s
B=10.6 ply; 59kN/s
} 1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 bxa3 4.
Bxa3 {Ambos ultima jugada del libro 6} 4... Nc6 {9} 5. Nf3 {(Cc3) 6} 5... Nf6 {
3} 6. e5 {(Cc3) 6} 6... Ng4 {11} 7. d4 {11} 7... d5 {(Da5+) 9} 8. h3 {9} 8...
Nh6 {4} 9. c4 {(Cc3) 17} 9... dxc4 {(Cf5) 7} 10. Bxc4 {8} 10... b5 {(e6) 8} 11.
Bd3 {6} 11... b4 {(e6) 7} 12. Bb2 {5} 12... Be6 {(e6) 7} 13. Ra6 {(Cbd2) 8}
13... Rc8 {16} 14. Qa4 {9} 14... Bd7 {7} 15. Bb5 {8} 15... Nb8 {7} 16. e6 {
(Txa7) 7} 16... fxe6 {3} 17. Ne5 {7} 17... Rc7 {(Axb5) 5} 18. Rxe6 {5} 18...
Nf7 {(Axb5) 5} 19. Nxd7 {7} 19... Nxd7 {2} 20. O-O {5} 20... Nd6 {11} 21. Bd3 {
(Dxb4) 7} 21... Qb8 {(Cc4) 11} 22. Rfe1 {(Cd2) 12} 22... Kd8 {(Cf7) 4} 23. Bc1
{(Cd2) 5} 23... Nf6 {(Db6) 8} 24. Bf4 {(Ad2) 7} 24... Rd7 {10} 25. Nd2 {5}
25... g5 {(Cd5) 5} 26. Bxg5 {5} 26... Rg8 {(Ag7) 15} 27. Nf3 {(Axf6) 6} 27...
Qc7 {(Cfe8) 5} 28. Rc1 {5} 28... Qb7 {8} 29. Ba6 {(Tc6) 8} 29... Qxf3 {(Da8) 4}
30. Qa5+ {5} 30... Ke8 {3} 31. gxf3 {5} 31... h6 {3} 32. f4 {5} 32... hxg5 {10}
33. fxg5 {(Ab5) 5} 33... Kf7 {8} 34. Re5 {(Tc6) 11} 34... e6 {14} 35. h4 {
(d5) 8} 35... Be7 {(Tg7) 12} 36. Rce1 {5} 36... Bd8 {(Cd5) 30} 37. Qxb4 {
(Dc5) 3} 37... Nd5 {2} 38. Qa4 {(Db3) 3} 38... Re7 {5} 39. Qc6 {4} 39... Nf6 {3
} 40. Qxd6 {6} 40... Bc7 {2} 41. Qxe7+ {4} 1-0

[Event "Rybka Toga, Blitz:4'+2""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.01.19"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Black "Toga II 3.1.2SE"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B20"]
[PlyCount "108"]

{W=13.0 ply; 172kN/s
B=14.7 ply; 737kN/s
} 1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 bxa3 4.
Bxa3 {Ambos ultima jugada del libro 6} 4... Nc6 {8} 5. Nc3 {(Cf3) 10} 5... Nf6
{10} 6. Nf3 {17} 6... d5 {9} 7. Bd3 {5} 7... Bg4 {(d4) 9} 8. h3 {(e5) 11} 8...
Bxf3 {7} 9. Qxf3 {3} 9... d4 {14} 10. Ne2 {6} 10... a6 {(Dc7) 6} 11. O-O {2}
11... e6 {8} 12. Bxf8 {7} 12... Kxf8 {8} 13. Qg3 {(Df4) 9} 13... h5 {9} 14. f4
{6} 14... Nd7 {8} 15. Bc4 {16} 15... Rc8 {(Th6) 16} 16. f5 {2} 16... e5 {7} 17.
Rfb1 {(Db3) 5} 17... b5 {(Cc5) 6} 18. Bd5 {7} 18... Qb6 {7} 19. Qa3+ {11} 19...
Qc5 {(Cc5) 7} 20. Nc1 {5} 20... Qxa3 {4} 21. Rxa3 {2} 21... Ncb8 {5} 22. c3 {10
} 22... dxc3 {7} 23. dxc3 {6} 23... Ke7 {9} 24. Nd3 {7} 24... Rc7 {(Thd8) 7}
25. Nb4 {8} 25... Rh6 {6} 26. Bb3 {(Tc1) 4} 26... Kf8 {6} 27. c4 {(Cd5) 7}
27... bxc4 {4} 28. Nd5 {8} 28... Rc5 {(cxb3) 4} 29. Bd1 {4} 29... h4 {(Thc6) 6}
30. Be2 {6} 30... Rd6 {(Thc6) 5} 31. Kf2 {8} 31... a5 {5} 32. Rc3 {4} 32... Nc6
{5} 33. Rb7 {(Txc4) 6} 33... a4 {5} 34. Ke3 {9} 34... Kg8 {(Re8) 8} 35. Bd1 {
(Rf2) 4} 35... a3 {(Ca5) 21} 36. Rxa3 {1} 36... c3 {4} 37. Ra6 {(Ta2) 11} 37...
Nf6 {3} 38. Nxf6+ {6} 38... Rxf6 {3} 39. Ra2 {2} 39... Kh7 {4} 40. Rc7 {(Ac2) 3
} 40... Rd6 {3} 41. Bb3 {4} 41... Rd3+ {3} 42. Ke2 {5} 42... Nd4+ {6} 43. Kxd3
{1} 43... Rxc7 {1} 44. Bc2 {5} 44... Kh6 {(f6) 5} 45. Ra5 {5} 45... f6 {3} 46.
Ra1 {(Ta8) 3} 46... Kg5 {4} 47. Rf1 {4} 47... Ra7 {(Td7) 4} 48. Rf2 {3} 48...
Ra2 {3} 49. Kxc3 {2} 49... Rxc2+ {3} 50. Rxc2 {38} 50... Nxc2 {3} 51. Kxc2 {2}
51... Kf4 {3} 52. Kd3 {2} 52... Kg3 {2} 53. Ke3 {20} 53... Kxg2 {3} 54. Ke2 {2}
54... Kxh3 {3} 0-1

Regards

Armando, please consider that Toga is the imbreeding sister of RybkaBeta. The latter 4 years old and the former always tuned against the older sister. Where is the surprise you want to publish? A RybkaBeta a little bit tuned over 4 years, if that wouldnt be a little bit stronger then I would declare the case as hopeless. But I have a second point. You still use and play and test with RybkaBeta.

Do you own a PC? Ok, so you have these 500 $$ for a PC but you dont have the 50 $$ for the better professional Rybka???

Isnt it a Punch and Judy Show what you are playing?

I think that you're getting yourself so confused Rolf,where is your proof,do you have the source codes of the two programs to confirm your claiming

[Albert Silver]

Making such strong engines and then releasing them for free!? What is wrong with you? Didn't you know that people payed good money for fritz, junior, chesstiger 2007, and zappa. Only to see your free engine destroy them!! Shame Shame on you people.

Sign,
free strong engine hater

Could be worse.

Could be like Rybka, being sold, and beating every single engine on the market for 2 years, while the evil author shamelessly refuses to tell everyone how it was done.

Signed,

Even bigger commercial stronger engine haterer

I'm surprised you don't "get the point".

But that's life...

I got it just fine. The problem is the double-standard you use. No one besmirches the value of your contributions in the CC field. You are a professor, and have lived by the standard of teaching what you know. You also don't need to go commerical in order to make a living. Nothing wrong with that of course. It's laudable.

There are plenty of authors who have come here, learned from you, and progressed enough to try and go commercial in the very cutthroat field of engines. Few survive for long.

For some reason, the idea of going commercial is unacceptable to you if that author learned anything from you. If they do, then they owe it to you to show how they did it. You were shown this, and argued that your college students paid for the classes, so it is different. Frankly, I think that's a lousy way of looking at it. If you want to teach because you believe in the selfless importance of spreading knowledge, that's fine, but clearly this teaching isn't selfless. It comes with an unspoken requirement that they do the same. If they don't, you will go so far as to approve of taking that knowledge by force (disassembling and distributing) without that author's approval. That's more than lousy. That stinks.

There is no question Vasik learned from you. And it is absolutely AMAZING that he managed to make his engine grow 800 Elo in a period of roughly 6 months, trouncing every single engine around. He's a genius. There's no other word for it. He has even managed to sustain that growth rate for two years. However, if you think about it, you'd realize that NO ONE has achieved this, and although you can take pride in having helped him understand some things, the difference between your best work, Crafty, and his is so huge that clearly he didn't just find one thing. He found a BUNCH. To think that one thing led to 800 elo is absurd. Even just two or three things.

In the field of chess engines, only the strongest survive, barring a few exceptions such as Chessmaster which aim at niche markets. To even expect Vasik to reveal what it is that helps him make a living is truly ridiculous, just as it is to begrudge him for it. Just my 2 cents.

Peace,

Albert

[ArmyBridge]

Though rybka wins many of its games, it's style lacks luster (kramnik like) and so no one cares. Not to mention that it is commercial. So when I lose I just say "oh, it should have won anyway" but Toga wins with style

Agreed. Currently, Toga Chekov is the second most aggressive engine that I have (even more aggressive than Loop!), second only to Shredder 10, but it plays stronger! So Toga wins in the aggressiveness/strength ratio.

I only hope that Rybka 3 will have some amazing playing style (because, I'm willing to buy it.)

Totally agree!
Maybe only Junior is more agressive than the new toga, few days ago, I run a small test with wild gambits, Toga II 3.1.2SE vs Rybka 1.0 chet this 2 games,
[Event "Rybka Toga, Blitz:4'+2""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.01.19"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Toga II 3.1.2SE"]
[Black "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B20"]
[PlyCount "81"]

{W=12.1 ply; 644kN/s
B=10.6 ply; 59kN/s
} 1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 bxa3 4.
Bxa3 {Ambos ultima jugada del libro 6} 4... Nc6 {9} 5. Nf3 {(Cc3) 6} 5... Nf6 {
3} 6. e5 {(Cc3) 6} 6... Ng4 {11} 7. d4 {11} 7... d5 {(Da5+) 9} 8. h3 {9} 8...
Nh6 {4} 9. c4 {(Cc3) 17} 9... dxc4 {(Cf5) 7} 10. Bxc4 {8} 10... b5 {(e6) 8} 11.
Bd3 {6} 11... b4 {(e6) 7} 12. Bb2 {5} 12... Be6 {(e6) 7} 13. Ra6 {(Cbd2) 8}
13... Rc8 {16} 14. Qa4 {9} 14... Bd7 {7} 15. Bb5 {8} 15... Nb8 {7} 16. e6 {
(Txa7) 7} 16... fxe6 {3} 17. Ne5 {7} 17... Rc7 {(Axb5) 5} 18. Rxe6 {5} 18...
Nf7 {(Axb5) 5} 19. Nxd7 {7} 19... Nxd7 {2} 20. O-O {5} 20... Nd6 {11} 21. Bd3 {
(Dxb4) 7} 21... Qb8 {(Cc4) 11} 22. Rfe1 {(Cd2) 12} 22... Kd8 {(Cf7) 4} 23. Bc1
{(Cd2) 5} 23... Nf6 {(Db6) 8} 24. Bf4 {(Ad2) 7} 24... Rd7 {10} 25. Nd2 {5}
25... g5 {(Cd5) 5} 26. Bxg5 {5} 26... Rg8 {(Ag7) 15} 27. Nf3 {(Axf6) 6} 27...
Qc7 {(Cfe8) 5} 28. Rc1 {5} 28... Qb7 {8} 29. Ba6 {(Tc6) 8} 29... Qxf3 {(Da8) 4}
30. Qa5+ {5} 30... Ke8 {3} 31. gxf3 {5} 31... h6 {3} 32. f4 {5} 32... hxg5 {10}
33. fxg5 {(Ab5) 5} 33... Kf7 {8} 34. Re5 {(Tc6) 11} 34... e6 {14} 35. h4 {
(d5) 8} 35... Be7 {(Tg7) 12} 36. Rce1 {5} 36... Bd8 {(Cd5) 30} 37. Qxb4 {
(Dc5) 3} 37... Nd5 {2} 38. Qa4 {(Db3) 3} 38... Re7 {5} 39. Qc6 {4} 39... Nf6 {3
} 40. Qxd6 {6} 40... Bc7 {2} 41. Qxe7+ {4} 1-0

[Event "Rybka Toga, Blitz:4'+2""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.01.19"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Black "Toga II 3.1.2SE"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B20"]
[PlyCount "108"]

{W=13.0 ply; 172kN/s
B=14.7 ply; 737kN/s
} 1. e4 c5 2. b4 cxb4 3. a3 bxa3 4.
Bxa3 {Ambos ultima jugada del libro 6} 4... Nc6 {8} 5. Nc3 {(Cf3) 10} 5... Nf6
{10} 6. Nf3 {17} 6... d5 {9} 7. Bd3 {5} 7... Bg4 {(d4) 9} 8. h3 {(e5) 11} 8...
Bxf3 {7} 9. Qxf3 {3} 9... d4 {14} 10. Ne2 {6} 10... a6 {(Dc7) 6} 11. O-O {2}
11... e6 {8} 12. Bxf8 {7} 12... Kxf8 {8} 13. Qg3 {(Df4) 9} 13... h5 {9} 14. f4
{6} 14... Nd7 {8} 15. Bc4 {16} 15... Rc8 {(Th6) 16} 16. f5 {2} 16... e5 {7} 17.
Rfb1 {(Db3) 5} 17... b5 {(Cc5) 6} 18. Bd5 {7} 18... Qb6 {7} 19. Qa3+ {11} 19...
Qc5 {(Cc5) 7} 20. Nc1 {5} 20... Qxa3 {4} 21. Rxa3 {2} 21... Ncb8 {5} 22. c3 {10
} 22... dxc3 {7} 23. dxc3 {6} 23... Ke7 {9} 24. Nd3 {7} 24... Rc7 {(Thd8) 7}
25. Nb4 {8} 25... Rh6 {6} 26. Bb3 {(Tc1) 4} 26... Kf8 {6} 27. c4 {(Cd5) 7}
27... bxc4 {4} 28. Nd5 {8} 28... Rc5 {(cxb3) 4} 29. Bd1 {4} 29... h4 {(Thc6) 6}
30. Be2 {6} 30... Rd6 {(Thc6) 5} 31. Kf2 {8} 31... a5 {5} 32. Rc3 {4} 32... Nc6
{5} 33. Rb7 {(Txc4) 6} 33... a4 {5} 34. Ke3 {9} 34... Kg8 {(Re8) 8} 35. Bd1 {
(Rf2) 4} 35... a3 {(Ca5) 21} 36. Rxa3 {1} 36... c3 {4} 37. Ra6 {(Ta2) 11} 37...
Nf6 {3} 38. Nxf6+ {6} 38... Rxf6 {3} 39. Ra2 {2} 39... Kh7 {4} 40. Rc7 {(Ac2) 3
} 40... Rd6 {3} 41. Bb3 {4} 41... Rd3+ {3} 42. Ke2 {5} 42... Nd4+ {6} 43. Kxd3
{1} 43... Rxc7 {1} 44. Bc2 {5} 44... Kh6 {(f6) 5} 45. Ra5 {5} 45... f6 {3} 46.
Ra1 {(Ta8) 3} 46... Kg5 {4} 47. Rf1 {4} 47... Ra7 {(Td7) 4} 48. Rf2 {3} 48...
Ra2 {3} 49. Kxc3 {2} 49... Rxc2+ {3} 50. Rxc2 {38} 50... Nxc2 {3} 51. Kxc2 {2}
51... Kf4 {3} 52. Kd3 {2} 52... Kg3 {2} 53. Ke3 {20} 53... Kxg2 {3} 54. Ke2 {2}
54... Kxh3 {3} 0-1

Regards

Armando, please consider that Toga is the imbreeding sister of RybkaBeta. The latter 4 years old and the former always tuned against the older sister. Where is the surprise you want to publish? A RybkaBeta a little bit tuned over 4 years, if that wouldnt be a little bit stronger then I would declare the case as hopeless. But I have a second point. You still use and play and test with RybkaBeta.

Do you own a PC? Ok, so you have these 500 $$ for a PC but you dont have the 50 $$ for the better professional Rybka???

Isnt it a Punch and Judy Show what you are playing?

Sorry but I think that you'r misundestood that what I mean, the only thing that I want show is that toga handle very well active play and is very agressive that´s all if you think that toga last version is a kind of Rybka big brother is other thing, and yes I have $$500 and more to buy a lote of professional programs but i don't want!!!
Regards

[eriq]

Great to see another strong free engine hater. It is good to have friends in hate. We should also call all open source engines that are good a clone of rybka. While we are at it, we should form a club like, "TSFEHC", you guess it genius, the strong free engine haters club. Let's not forget teeshirts and hats we could get and sell to support our new organization.

Oh and lets shout our slogan everywhere we go, "we hate free stuff, we hate talented people who create free stuff". When asked about our hate we should explain that we have no proof to support our thoughts, but just hate for the sake of hating. Yes, I'm with you brother and Dr. hyatt too, lets hate together, lets hate to the bitter end.

[mariaclara]

.
what a "hateful" post.

[quote="eriq"
........ but just hate for the sake of hating. Yes, I'm with you brother and Dr. hyatt too, lets hate together, lets hate to the bitter end. [/quote]

hahahaha.....



( me - a confirmed Toga addict. hehehe )

[Rolf]

Though rybka wins many of its games, it's style lacks luster (kramnik like) and so no one cares. Not to mention that it is commercial. So when I lose I just say "oh, it should have won anyway" but Toga wins with style

Agreed. Currently, Toga Chekov is the second most aggressive engine that I have (even more aggressive than Loop!), second only to Shredder 10, but it plays stronger! So Toga wins in the aggressiveness/strength ratio.

I only hope that Rybka 3 will have some amazing playing style (because, I'm willing to buy it.)

Totally agree!
Maybe only Junior is more agressive than the new toga, few days ago, I run a small test with wild gambits, Toga II 3.1.2SE vs Rybka 1.0 chet this 2 games,
[Event "Rybka Toga, Blitz:4'+2""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.01.19"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Toga II 3.1.2SE"]
[Black "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B20"]
[PlyCount "81"]

{W

Regards

Armando, please consider that Toga is the imbreeding sister of RybkaBeta. The latter 4 years old and the former always tuned against the older sister. Where is the surprise you want to publish? A RybkaBeta a little bit tuned over 4 years, if that wouldnt be a little bit stronger then I would declare the case as hopeless. But I have a second point. You still use and play and test with RybkaBeta.

Do you own a PC? Ok, so you have these 500 $$ for a PC but you dont have the 50 $$ for the better professional Rybka???

Isnt it a Punch and Judy Show what you are playing?

I think that you're getting yourself so confused Rolf,where is your proof,do you have the source codes of the two programs to confirm your claiming

Let's praise my unintentional but still successful experiment!!!

Yes, I have simply confused something writing from technical surface but this is all about ethics. I could prove that you are willing to win an argument no matter how cheap or shallow. Well done, applause. But the unethical attitude is clarified. Very sad day for computerchess.

[Rolf]

Making such strong engines and then releasing them for free!? What is wrong with you? Didn't you know that people payed good money for fritz, junior, chesstiger 2007, and zappa. Only to see your free engine destroy them!! Shame Shame on you people.

Sign,
free strong engine hater

Could be worse.

Could be like Rybka, being sold, and beating every single engine on the market for 2 years, while the evil author shamelessly refuses to tell everyone how it was done.

Signed,

Even bigger commercial stronger engine haterer

I'm surprised you don't "get the point".

But that's life...

I got it just fine. The problem is the double-standard you use. No one besmirches the value of your contributions in the CC field. You are a professor, and have lived by the standard of teaching what you know. You also don't need to go commerical in order to make a living. Nothing wrong with that of course. It's laudable.

There are plenty of authors who have come here, learned from you, and progressed enough to try and go commercial in the very cutthroat field of engines. Few survive for long.

For some reason, the idea of going commercial is unacceptable to you if that author learned anything from you. If they do, then they owe it to you to show how they did it. You were shown this, and argued that your college students paid for the classes, so it is different. Frankly, I think that's a lousy way of looking at it. If you want to teach because you believe in the selfless importance of spreading knowledge, that's fine, but clearly this teaching isn't selfless. It comes with an unspoken requirement that they do the same. If they don't, you will go so far as to approve of taking that knowledge by force (disassembling and distributing) without that author's approval. That's more than lousy. That stinks.

There is no question Vasik learned from you. And it is absolutely AMAZING that he managed to make his engine grow 800 Elo in a period of roughly 6 months, trouncing every single engine around. He's a genius. There's no other word for it. He has even managed to sustain that growth rate for two years. However, if you think about it, you'd realize that NO ONE has achieved this, and although you can take pride in having helped him understand some things, the difference between your best work, Crafty, and his is so huge that clearly he didn't just find one thing. He found a BUNCH. To think that one thing led to 800 elo is absurd. Even just two or three things.

In the field of chess engines, only the strongest survive, barring a few exceptions such as Chessmaster which aim at niche markets. To even expect Vasik to reveal what it is that helps him make a living is truly ridiculous, just as it is to begrudge him for it. Just my 2 cents.

Peace,

Albert

We should keep your message in mind for a while until we have a new ethical climate in computerchess. Perhaps the only criticism from my side is that you feel so much emotionally shaken by your sound judgement that you call for peace and minorize your clarity with the 2cts gesture.It's a shame that an academic has such a bad unethical agenda that he calls progress what he can achieve with Crafty - many Elo points below Rybka - and he tolerates everything that rips apart a genial achievement, even impolite abuses of Rybka's author who struggles to nourish his own small family. For fairness reasons I should mention that Bob clearly stated that he's not in favor of stealing... but re-compiling isnt stealing...

That stinks!

[Rolf]

Though rybka wins many of its games, it's style lacks luster (kramnik like) and so no one cares. Not to mention that it is commercial. So when I lose I just say "oh, it should have won anyway" but Toga wins with style

Agreed. Currently, Toga Chekov is the second most aggressive engine that I have (even more aggressive than Loop!), second only to Shredder 10, but it plays stronger! So Toga wins in the aggressiveness/strength ratio.

I only hope that Rybka 3 will have some amazing playing style (because, I'm willing to buy it.)

Totally agree!
Maybe only Junior is more agressive than the new toga, few days ago, I run a small test with wild gambits, Toga II 3.1.2SE vs Rybka 1.0 chet this 2 games,
[0-1

Regards

Armando, please consider that Toga is the imbreeding sister of RybkaBeta. The latter 4 years old and the former always tuned against the older sister. Where is the surprise you want to publish? A RybkaBeta a little bit tuned over 4 years, if that wouldnt be a little bit stronger then I would declare the case as hopeless. But I have a second point. You still use and play and test with RybkaBeta.

Do you own a PC? Ok, so you have these 500 $$ for a PC but you dont have the 50 $$ for the better professional Rybka???

Isnt it a Punch and Judy Show what you are playing?

Sorry but I think that you'r misundestood that what I mean, the only thing that I want show is that toga handle very well active play and is very agressive that´s all if you think that toga last version is a kind of Rybka big brother is other thing, and yes I have $$500 and more to buy a lote of professional programs but i don't want!!!
Regards

Thanks for making the Wael argument and falling into a typo trap! It's as if a computer would make the decisions, who has no ethical conscience. Who cant have such a feature by definition. Well, tht's a true suicide of the field as such. Sad day for computerchess.

[Henrik Dinesen]

Not being part of this argumenting in any way, I'm wondering why the persistent reference to Fruit 2.1 as being 4 years old... I was released spring / early summer 2005

And I don't consider if this has any meaning to the arguments in those treads, it's just about the facts, since Fruit's code is mentioned so much.

[ilari]

Sad day for computerchess.

You could argue that it's a sad day for computer chess as a competitive sport, but it's definitely a happy day for computer science. And that's what computer chess is to me.

Actually, in my opinion it's not bad for the sport either because derivatives aren't usually allowed to enter competitions.