Some results from Larry with finalized Beta

[Tony Thomas]

Marc, I have a question for you, are you saying that you posted a reply at the Rybka forum and then Larry K edited his post?? On the first post by Ted here, it says the same thing. I do agree that I sort of got mislead by reading the post as well that I had to read it about 3 times before I understood the message..I was thinking, if he is saying there is nowwhere near 200 point improvement vs other engines then why am I seeing figures such as 330 and 280 etc..Then it hit me, they never cared to do a test of previous version vs the engine of choice.

[Marc MP]

Marc, I have a question for you, are you saying that you posted a reply at the Rybka forum and then Larry K edited his post??

Hi Tony,

No, what I'm trying to say is that Larry K. may edit his *own* posts at the rybka forum (I'm not even registered at the rybka forum by ideology - it is a commercial product and I don't want to become a slave of mind there... that is another subject! - so I couldn't post there).

But then, don't quote Larry K. asynchronously to contradict me!

I'm sorry if the explanation wasn't 100% clear (english isn't my first language so these kinds of confusion may occur from me times to times. I'm happy you did ask for futher explanations, I'm always ready to give them).

On the first post by Ted here, it says the same thing. I do agree that I sort of got mislead by reading the post as well that I had to read it about 3 times before I understood the message..

I was thinking, if he is saying there is nowwhere near 200 point improvement vs other engines then why am I seeing figures such as 330 and 280 etc..Then it hit me, they never cared to do a test of previous version vs the engine of choice.

That is *exactly* what I'm trying to since my first post in this thread. I find that *misleading*. Unfortunately, good people (from what I can guess they are) can't admit that: they become blind when looking at the new star. That is very unfortunate, the new star will become old one day and another one will shine. Everyboby will see the truth.

[M ANSARI]

Rybka forum is upgrading its server ... so many posts are getting lost but they come back after some time. I have also had many posts dissapear but they eventually make it back. I don't think LK has anything to do with administrating the forum or that any posts were deleted on purpose.

[Henrik Dinesen]

Larry K. is an administrator on the rybka forum and have the chance to get its posts edited whenever he likes.
Have a good day,

Just for the record, and besides the point, anyone can edit their own posts. And for what I know, Larry is listed, but isn't acting as a mod on the Rybka forum - but not as an admin.

Again, clearification besides your point

[Marc MP]

Rybka forum is upgrading its server ... so many posts are getting lost but they come back after some time. I have also had many posts dissapear but they eventually make it back. I don't think LK has anything to do with administrating the forum or that any posts were deleted on purpose.

Hi M. Ansari,

What I'm saying is that Larry K. has the ability to edit his posts, server problem aside. Indeed in its first post on the subject: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... l?tid=5175 , we can (currently as I'm writing) see that the header shows: "De lkaufman (****) Date 2008-07-23 19:20 Edité 2008-07-25 02:06 " (my browser preferences are set to french).

There is nothing wrong with that. I didn't accuse the Rybka team of any wrong doing about that. The problem is that a poster here, "M. George Tsavdaris", uses Larry K. post asynchronously to contradict me. I believe this is only a mistake by him and that he didn't do so on purpose.

Any anycase I would like him to take on a stand on this, otherwise it looks like I'm the one that mislead the reader (by withholding what turned to be asynchronous information - in this case information written by Larry K. after I made my post here on the CCC).

[Marc MP]

Larry K. is an administrator on the rybka forum and have the chance to get its posts edited whenever he likes.
Have a good day,

Just for the record, and besides the point, anyone can edit their own posts. And for what I know, Larry is listed, but isn't acting as a mod on the Rybka forum - but not as an admin.

Again, clearification besides your point

Thank you for the clarification. I wrongly assumed (due that what I witnessed) that he was. As I mentionned I not a member there and wasn't aware of that fact, which I find surprising: as anyone can edit what he said anytime, then the quotes from the rybka forum are of little value.

Note (before I get hammered over this!): I make a distinction between the quotes from the rybka forum reported here (or elsewhere), which I consider of little value because the source can be edited at will, and the value of information of the posts there (because the vast majority of posters act in good faith I believe).

[Henrik Dinesen]

Thank you for the clarification. I wrongly assumed (due that what I witnessed) that he was. As I mentionned I not a member there and wasn't aware of that fact, which I find surprising: as anyone can edit what he said anytime, then the quotes from the rybka forum are of little value.

Note (before I get hammered over this!): I make a distinction between the quotes from the rybka forum reported here (or elsewhere), which I consider of little value because the source can be edited at will, and the value of information of the posts there (because the vast majority of posters act in good faith I believe).

You're welcome Marc,

Another clarification then: If you look at the upper right corner of your posts here, you'll see an "edit"-button...
While abuse is possible with any feature present, my experience tells me it's rarely used that way - here or in any other chess-fora I've participated in.

To some it's merely a "update-post" button, saving multiple posts, to others it's a needy feature when you've mispelled something, or missed a word...

Best,

[Marc MP]

One more thing ... I think LK mentioned that he thought the ELO improvement was around 100 ELO ... not 300 or 400 ELO as was mentioned.

From what I've read and what I've been told by reliable sources, Rybka 3 is probably a 100+ elo improvement on 1CPU, but a bigger improvement on multi-cpu.

Regards, Graham.

Mon Dieu! I do not remember a great improvement between a version of a
top engine to another.
Anyone remember?

Paulo Soares

Deep Sjeng 3.0 vs Deep Sjeng 2.7, released 3 weeks ago.

It depends on what he means with "top engine".
Perhaps he has as top engines the top 3 on CEGT/CCRL so in that case Sjeng is not a top engine. But i can't be sure of course what he exactly means....

I'm quite sure Paulo considers Sjeng as a top engine. I consider it as being one. If you don't, that is your decision.

[Marc MP]

Thank you for the clarification. I wrongly assumed (due that what I witnessed) that he was. As I mentionned I not a member there and wasn't aware of that fact, which I find surprising: as anyone can edit what he said anytime, then the quotes from the rybka forum are of little value.

Note (before I get hammered over this!): I make a distinction between the quotes from the rybka forum reported here (or elsewhere), which I consider of little value because the source can be edited at will, and the value of information of the posts there (because the vast majority of posters act in good faith I believe).

You're welcome Marc,

Another clarification then: If you look at the upper right corner of your posts here, you'll see an "edit"-button...
While abuse is possible with any feature present, my experience tells me it's rarely used that way - here or in any other chess-fora I've participated in.

To some it's merely a "update-post" button, saving multiple posts, to others it's a needy feature when you've mispelled something, or missed a word...

Best,

Hi again Henrik,

From my experience, the edit feature is only available for a limited amount of time ( I would guess half an hour) here. After that the button still shows but when you click it, they tell you it is too late to edit.

[George Tsavdaris]

...

And now the elo gains reported are: "+200", "+282", "+330".

That is immensly misleading to me because it compares the actual elo difference between Rybka 3 and the given opponents.

This doesn't seem misleading to me.
What it compares is plain clear!
You have a series of matches and next to them the ELO for this match.
If you take it the way you take it, then the responsibility is not their, but yours.

So this is what you claim "plain clear". I'm sorry, but in my books a "plain clear" statement looks like: "Rybka 3 is estimated to be 130 elo superior to its predecessor".

No this is one type of plain clear information. The one that compares Rybka 3 vs Rybka 2.3.2a against a big pool of engines.

Another one type of clear information is to have Rybka's 3 ELO compared to a series of opponents.

The fact that the first information is more helpful in comparing R3 vs R2.3.2a, is irrelevant to the fact of clear and not misleading information.

It's more valuable information yes, for sure, but what they do now is also clear and not misleading.
Of course and does not answer the question how much Rybka 3 is improved in comparison to Rybka 2.3.2a when playing other programs, but still not misleading.

And more than that what you quoted from them above, clearly shows what you supported that they are trying to mislead us by not saying. But they clearly say it!!
------
Comment(By Larry.K): It seems that the much better time management helps much more against other Rybkas than against unrelated programs. Do not expect anywhere near a 200 Elo gain over 2.3.2a against programs unrelated to Rybka.
------
How more clear they should be?

Larry K. is an administrator on the rybka forum and have the chance to get its posts edited whenever he likes. As I'm writing this the last edit is from: "19:20 Edité 2008-07-25 02:06". That is after your latest post to me.

The quotes from Larry K. you mentionned (and highlighted in bold and red), were posted after I made my statement. Then you ask me "How more clear should that be?"

The edits are because Larry updates the results in the same post and not for another reason.

Also the above statement of Larry is taken from YOUR original post here, so obviously it has been made before you write on the subject.

And actually these words of Larry are from the topic starter here in CCC, Eelco de Groot, so obviously they were made WAY BEFORE you say anything here in CCC.

From what I understand the Rybka Team (represented here by Larry K.), made corrections following to the point I made (or others before or after me, it doesn't matter).

Larry does not read this board.

Also as i've said above, the post that you were saying that point, CONTAINS his words that you propose he put afterwards.
Here is your post that contains his words: POST

I hope you weren't misleading the reader by showing statements by Larry K. that weren't written yet when I posted my critique about rybka 3 elo improvement methodology. I understand it could be a mistake from you.

As i've showed his words were made before you even say anything about it on CCC. Clear enough?

Also it's ridiculous to say that i tried to mislead people because i didn't looked the times from the posts by Larry and you were made.
I don't look the times usually.

And once again the fact that clear things up:

These words of Larry are from the topic starter here in CCC Eelco de Groot, so obviously they were made WAY BEFORE you say anything here in CCC.

So Larry said that:
"It seems that the much better time management helps much more against other Rybkas than against unrelated programs. Do not expect anywhere near a 200 Elo gain over 2.3.2a against programs unrelated to Rybka."

And have said that way before you write anything at CCC, so it's wrong that he supposedly made corrections to it because he read these critiques.