Ippolit again

[WinPooh]

Rybkaforum's policy is much more strict:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=13022

[George Tsavdaris]

the moderators of CCC do a good job IMO.
of course you cannot satisfy 100% of the readers and participants.

this is impossible.

It's not impossible. For example if moderators gave some hundreds of dollars to all readers and participants then i guess everyone would be happy with the moderators.

So in that sense moderators are not doing a good job by not giving us money to be happy.

[Steve B]

the moderators of CCC do a good job IMO.
of course you cannot satisfy 100% of the readers and participants.

this is impossible.

It's not impossible. For example if moderators gave some hundreds of dollars to all readers and participants then i guess everyone would be happy with the moderators.

So in that sense moderators are not doing a good job by not giving us money to be happy.

Spoken like a great potential future mod George


Show Me The Money Regards
Steve

[Steve B]

Thanks to all those expressing their support here in this thread and in other threads
nice to occasionally hear from those that agree ..
because we never seem to be at a loss hearing from those that disagree

Moderating Regards
Steve

[rlsuth]

Thanks to all those expressing their support here in this thread and in other threads
nice to occasionally hear from those that agree ..
because we never seem to be at a loss hearing from those that disagree

Moderating Regards
Steve

Disagreement is the backbone of a free society.

I think the links should have remained until the author of Rybka (or someone else who believes their code has been inappropriately used) provided definitive proof to the moderators that the program was based on stolen code, and I'm not talking about his releasing his code. If there is obvious duplication of code, reverse engineering or some piece of code peculiar only to Rybka, that would have been enough for someone like Bob Hyatt to determine that the code is indeed stolen. Otherwise the engine, and it's author, are unjustifiably tarred and feathered by a simply suspicious moderation team. (of course, if Vas has already provided such proof, ignore this post)

I don't think the moderation team should be in the business of casting aspersions on programs/programmers unless requested, with appropriate reasons, by the owner of other code.

Just my two cents.

[kurt]

This new engine running on my comp out searches Rybka3 by about
4 to 6 ply with a very good position evaluation. As an interesting
bystander since the early Crafty times, I rate the playing strength
as the best engine ever created. Its blazing speed is simply put
astounding and thus advances computer chess
comparable to the big bang theory of evolution.

Why then try to suppress such an invention? Dr. R. Hyatt and other leading designers ; why not run with the torch of discovery helping to contribute in the advance of science.

IMO the designer of this new engine deserve recognition for their
efforts and should not be suppressed with claims like the world is flat and not round.

Unless I see where VAS got his over night idea and then hide it from the sientific comunity , I will support the new invention for the good of all chess players.

[George Tsavdaris]

This new engine running on my comp out searches Rybka3 by about
4 to 6 ply with a very good position evaluation.

And how do you know Rybka's depth?


What i'm saying is that maybe Rybka 3 hides it's real depth and this clone of Rybka(if it is) is just showing the real depth which, being a R3 clone, is the real depth of R3.

[Steve B]

Why then try to suppress such an invention? Dr. R. Hyatt and other leading designers ; why not run with the torch of discovery helping to contribute in the advance of science.

i am certainly no leading designer and Bob will of course answer for himself but i would not exactly characterize allowing a FULL AND OPEN discussion here as a form of Suppression
however removing all posts and threads as soon as they appear ( as some wanted and undoubtedly still do) not to mention redacting out the name of the Engine(s) might be considered suppression
Steve

[Sylwy]

This new engine running on my comp out searches Rybka3 by about
4 to 6 ply with a very good position evaluation.

And how do you know Rybka's depth?


What i'm saying is that maybe Rybka 3 hides it's real depth and this clone of Rybka(if it is) is just showing the real depth which, being a R3 clone, is the real depth of R3.

Hi !

IPP has a more violent pruning so this chess engine can see deeply in the horizon of search.
Also it's very clear for me that IPP is a better engine than Rybka 3.Only the time management is -sometime-a problem.

Silvian

[kurt]

This new engine running on my comp out searches Rybka3 by about
4 to 6 ply with a very good position evaluation.

And how do you know Rybka's depth?


What i'm saying is that maybe Rybka 3 hides it's real depth and this clone of Rybka(if it is) is just showing the real depth which, being a R3 clone, is the real depth of R3.

Well, occasionally I do make my own position assessments just to see
where the engines are leading to or to evaluate the accuracy of the displayed pv at various depths for different positions. And then again there is the possibility to make a comparison of engines letting them face each other in an engine match, right?