Some results from Larry with finalized Beta

[Henrik Dinesen]

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.

There you go, I've not even tried to edit anything later than a few minutes after my original posts

[George Tsavdaris]

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.

Yes, but i think here in CCC it's 15 minutes.
In Rybkaforum it's 60 minutes for normal posters, but as you've said Larry has the privilege to edit whenever he wants.

But i guess you understand now that he didn't make any edit because he saw the critiques by people and you. He did write those things way before.

The other post of mine is obsolete now since i didn't read these posts of you that you understood what really happened.

Anyway if you read Rybkaforum i think you would understand that Larry is not someone who would try to deceive people in order to buy Rybka 3.
That's my impression anyway.

[Henrik Dinesen]

Anyway if you read Rybkaforum i think you would understand that Larry is not someone who would try to deceive people in order to buy Rybka 3.
That's my impression anyway.

I'll second that opinion without hesitation. Some may no agree in the methods or the public representation of results of his, but he doesn't fiffle with them - he brings what he has/sees.

And yes, the referring to posts from one forum to another may cause some "lag" - in the minds of people too

[George Tsavdaris]

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.

Does this asynchronously means(English is not my native language either ) that your post was made before Larry's and i used it to contradict you?

If that's the meaning, as i've said:
First, actually his post was before yours and secondly even if that wasn't the case it wasn't on purpose since i don't' look at the times every post is made.

I believe this is only a mistake by him and that he didn't do so on purpose.

Thank you that you believe this because even if Larry's posts was after yours, i indeed wouldn't do it on purpose.
But actually his post was made before yours so i didn't do any mistake here after all.

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).

I believe that you mislead the reader but only because you had wrong information as you believed that Larry edited his post(seemed that way) after reading the critiques. And not because you had any mean intentions of course!

[Marc MP]

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.

George,

You are correct about this. The words were in Eelco post. This is my mistake. I just realized it.

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.

I purposely took the time to write:

I understand it could be a mistake from you.

... to make sure everyone understood that I wasn't accusing you of any intentional wroing doing.

Edit(!): I just seen your other post. Glad you mentionned it, thank you!

Also, my mistake came from the fact that you quoted Larry K. without reporting the fact that you were quoting Eelco which was himself reporting Larry K. . There is an important difference between these two. You didn't quote Eelco, while that is what you were doing. Refresh your memory here: http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?p=203033#203033

What you should I've done is something like:

...

Comment: 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.

...

PS: I still find the way the results are presented confusing about the elo improvement, aside from the Larry K. issue. But I think we disagree on this.

Edit(!): As I seen your other post (and from what other suggest), I don't think L. Kaufman try to mislead the reader. The results might just be presented in a confusing way. As he is part of a commercial venture, he should take care about this issue however.

[George Tsavdaris]

Well yes, i should have been more clear too but i thought you were a Rybkaforum member....

PS: I still find the way the results are presented confusing about the elo improvement, aside from the Larry K. issue. But I think we disagree on this.

We disagree and i guess it is because of the amount of received data each of us receives about Rybka's results.
I'm reading regularly the Rybkaforum while you obviously not, so i know better about all the results and of the past too and can make the comparisons of Rybka 2.3.2a vs Rybka 3 on my own and even if there is missing information i'm aware of it.

For example in that case i remember the results that R2.3.2a had so i've made the comparison immediately with these of R3. You couldn't know them so the lack of them makes you feeling that their method of introducing the results is misleading.
It's understandable, but if you were on the Rybkaforum you will see a tendency that they treat their members as Rybka-full-awareness people.

[M ANSARI]

While LK might be involved with Rybka commerically ... I most definetely am not. I am just your average computer chess enthusiast just like most here, who is quite excited by the improvements in Rybka and chess engines in general. I couldn't care less about ELO point improvement and am more interested in attractive and strong attacking playing style ... ofcourse obviously I do see a correlation between the two. Anyway very soon CCRL and CEGT will test it and the truth will come out ... I have a feeling everyone will be impressed.

[Marc MP]

While LK might be involved with Rybka commerically ... I most definetely am not. I am just your average computer chess enthusiast just like most here, who is quite excited by the improvements in Rybka and chess engines in general. I couldn't care less about ELO point improvement and am more interested in attractive and strong attacking playing style ... ofcourse obviously I do see a correlation between the two. Anyway very soon CCRL and CEGT will test it and the truth will come out ... I have a feeling everyone will be impressed.

I'm 100% sure that you are trying to post results in the most unbiased way you can. When I mentionned that I prefer clear data for commercial ventures, this is because I think it is good business pratice in general, not because there is something misrepresented on purpose by any member of the Rybka team.

In fact, I wanted to thank you for the little I know from the rybka forum: that is posts about how to overclock a cpu (by you and Phil Harris). I find your explanations very good and you seems to be very generous of your time.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hello Pedro
As a dream, I would like like a human to play the Rybka 3 running its in a top hardware.
Best,
Pablo

Cut your nonsense Pablo please,we are discussing a serious stuff here....

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hello Pedro
As a dream, I would like like a human to play the Rybka 3 running its in a top hardware.

This time no wins for you. They have a special surprise for you as they've said.

Actually it's a setting that would deal with the lag problem there is, as also other time related problems where time disappears, so Rybka won't lose on time.
The question is if you can now take a draw from Rybka 3 with the Rybka 3.ctg book. And if yes, out of how many games?

He won't take a single game,and if he does,it will be faked....