Jump to content

Talk:Rybka

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdtr (talk | contribs) at 15:39, 15 January 2011 (→‎Larry Kaufman is not in charge of the evaluation function anymore: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

old talk

Name Rybka is a little joke, since one of the world champion's name is Fischer(close to fisher)

Are you sure? "Fischer" really means fisher in German - but I cannot imagine that somebody would make such a strange pun when naming his chess program... Would it mean that this small rybka will escape even Fischer? --Ioannes Pragensis 08:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to see some information on how rybka differs from other engines. Is any such information available?
It is not a marketing tool, it is an encyclopedia article whose purpose is to provide readers with knowledge about the current top rated chess engine. Dionyseus 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second line of the article states that Rybka leads all computer chess ratinglists. It has won many tournaments that are indistinguishable with the "world championship" in format or number of rounds. As for the world championship, with so few rounds the winner is basically the engine that manages to draw less than the others against the lesser opposition, which was the case that night. Dionyseus 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might be so, and your point about how such tourneys tend to be very short, hence the high luck factor is well taken. But the point is people generally do want to know who is world champion, it's kind of like people wanting to know who is the current Olympic champion (or sometimes world champion)in sprinting, even though it's just one silly race among dozens of races they will run in a season. So I pretty much added a part in, stating that it is top ranked in rating lists and has won many tourneys, though it has yet to win a world championship. I hope this criticism is mild enough for you, particularly since I'm just stating a fact. Aarontay 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Name "Rybka" is rather polish word. It doesn't sound like czech word and this word exists in polish language(Vasik wife is from Poland)

Czech is my mother language and I know that this word is a correct Czech word and has the same meaning as in other Slavic languages where it exists - a little fish. Rajlich must have known the word from Czech a long time before he met his wife.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rybka" is a Polish word (and a Czech world etc.) and means a little fish. Vasik's wife is Polish so it makes sense that he knows the word as a Polish word.
Nope - it doesn't make any sense: Vasik's parents are Czech, Czech is Vasik's mother language, so he knows the word as a Czech world. What you put above is same nonsense as if an Englishman married a German girl and as a result knew "fish" as a German word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.231.188 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have another theory. I think the name "Rybka" (meaning "little fish") actually refers to his wife. If you look at her picture on this wikipedia page, you can see some small resemblance, due to the rather long nose and somewhat pursed lips. It is even clearer in this wikipedia picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iweta_Rajlich_Budapest_2006_park.jpg. It may well be an affectionate term he used for his wife. I offer as supporting evidence the fact that he refers to Rybka, the program, as "she" in the same interview where he said "that's my secret". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.200.23 (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critisms

Of course everyone kind of knows that Rybka is dominating the comp versus comp engine matches. But I think it might be a good idea to include some criticisms. The problem with pages like this on Wikipedia is that it ends up looking like an advertising/marketing page. Just a thought. Aarontay 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "criticism" section would have to contain stuff from reliable, reputable sources. This stuff is notoriously hard to find, so it is likely that such a section would end up being a repository for random editor's original venting about the product. I think this is a bad idea. ⟳ausa کui × 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding criticism for the sake of criticizing something is not a NPOV. There has to be a compelling reason to add it in,. and as Ryan pointed out it has to be from a reputable source. 75.85.171.230 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The worlds strongest commercially available engine sounds more definitive than merely describing it as one of the best. Any engine that does not place last, could conceivably be said to be one of the best. I suppose if we wanted to get real specific we could write that no known engine performs better on 1,2, and 4 processor machines, which is what chess engines are now tested on. The purpose being because Hydra is said to be around 3000+ in strength, on 64+ processors, though there is no way to objectively determine this as with other privately owned and operated chess "machines" (another example being Deep Blue)

Also, as stated, Rybka gains roughly 50 Elo with each doubling of processors. Rybka does not gain 50 with every extra processor nor has the author of Rybka ever made this claim. Vasik's estimates give an increase from 4 to 8 processors roughly 45 Elo. Uavle 02:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of sample game

What is the relevance of the sample game section? To the casual reader, it imparts zero information. To the interested chess enthusiast, it's just one game; how does it in any way impart information about the subject of the article? Oli Filth 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Oli Filth here. As no one else has commented this matter, I've boldly removed the section now. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Talk:Gothic chess. Apparently this is a more widespread problem of sample games that need to be dealt with in multiple articles.--Isotope23 talk 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly taken the sample game in this article is not comparable to those games presented in the chess variant articles. The sample game in this article was just meant to demonstrate the Rybka playing style, cunning moves or something similar. That's not a how-to do anything and neither I nor Oli Filth are implying it is. In chess variant articles, however, sample games are used to illustrate their rules, possibly making them removable how-to content. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated on the Gothic Chess discussion area, if it is "human nature" to include a sample game for the sake of furnishing the type of content that is expected of the portion of the readership interested enough to replay the game, then by all means, I say let a sample game remain. I have heard a wide range of arguments, such as providing a sample game is contrary to the Not A How To guidelines.
Claiming a sample game is a "How To Play Chess" example is about as meaningful as claiming you can learn how to become a painter by looking at the Mona Lisa.
I have also heard that including a sample game is "not encyclopediac", yet in my 1963 Encyclopedia Britannica, I see a sample game of Reshevsky listed. So, it must be "encyclopediac" if an analog source included it from long before there was "the net".
In my opinion, some Wikipedia editors take it personally when you confront them with such facts that refute their arguments, so they change their arguments, and persue other avenues to keep content from being furnished. I have seen this done numerous times by some of the aforementioned posters who removed the Rybka sample game.
To them I say: Why don't you add some content of value? I can take any homeless man wandering the street, give him 10 seconds of training with a mouse and keyboard, and he can remove content from Wikipedia also.
GothicChessInventor 04:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that people who are looking forward to become painters do study Mona Lisa at some point. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, in typical fashion, ZeroOne implies that I have said something that I have not, with his own misconstrued reply. I never said anything about studying the Mona Lisa. I'm sure art students or those looking to become better painters study it also. That doesn't mean you can look at it and learn how to paint. You must practice painting no matter how much you stare at the best example of a great work of art. The same is true of sample games of chess (and Gothic Chess.) One sample game is not a violation of the "Not A How To" pillar of Wikipedia. You can't look at one sample game and know how to play chess, nor a chess variant. If that was the case, you could look at the Trice-Polgar game on the Gothic Chess page then give me a battle. I think it is safe to say you are not claiming to be able to hold your own against me in a game of Gothic Chess. And if this is the case, the argument you have put forth regarding "Not How To" falls apart.

GothicChessInventor 13:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sample games are an established precedent in many chess articles, especially chess biographies. Probably the best place to start a discussion about the relevance of sample games would be on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess. ⟳ausa کui × 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that sample games are an established precedent. I am very concerned about them, and I think that at least one other active WP:CHESS contributor is as well. Concerns have been mentioned in passing at WT:CHESS, although no one has had the interest to start an in depth discussion of the issue. I do agree that it would be good to hash that out in a central place to get some guidance as to the consensus view about sample games. Also, as an unrelated aside: GothicChessInventer, would you PLEASE QUIT WITH THE DIV BOXES. You have been asked nicely many times, and we are tired of asking. Actually I'd be happy if everyone involved could try to confine the mud-wrestling with Ed Tice to the Gothic Chess and Capablanca Chess ghetto rather than letting it spill out elsewhere in Wikipedia. Quale 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there is a precedent for such things, no-one has yet answered my original question above, namely what the purpose of this section is in this instance. I don't see what useful information it imparts; it's just one game. I can possibly see the merit in some annotated examples and discussion of particular strategies the algorithm uses. But as it stands, I can't see how the section imparts anything useful, even to a seasoned chess expert. Oli Filth 09:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As no-one has yet answered this question (which was the original justification for removal of the section), I have once again removed the sample game, as I don't see what purpose it serves in the article. Oli Filth(talk) 23:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sample games without any kind of annotation are as good as meaningless. And I actually don't believe it's a good practice to include them even when they are annotated, mostly because they can not be annotated by a player with some authority invested on him (which is of big importance for readers). The thing is: annotation is quite subjective (on when, why, and how often to comment on a move) and usually "good annotations" is recognized not only for its intrinsic (hard to evaluate) worth but also for the name of the annotator; i.e. the reader must "trust" the annotator to a high degree to make use out of the comments (how do we know the guy who wrote that isn't wrong?, or: how could we know the annotation comes from a reliable source?) Wikipedia can quote works about particular games, but it can't xerox annotation, and even if it could, are we sure we can find some good annotation, with a genuinely broad audience in mind, about Rybka games?; poor annotaion would bring the quality of the article down and a simple "sample" game would only do worst. If something must be done it would be to quote relevant sources of praise or critisism towards specific Rybka games and maybe add the games too. Can someone get us such a source? 189.145.61.107 (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Random reader of the article[reply]

Claiming "strongest" violates WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK

The following line keeps being deleted and re-added:

Rybka is the world's strongest commercially available computer chess engine.

A claim like this violates WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. The best you can do is present objective evidence (which is already done: the list of titles gained and rating lists topped). --IanOsgood 16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It does not fall under WP:NPOV or WP:PEACOCK because it is both important (see WP:PEACOCK#Do not hide the important facts) and quantifiable; in particular, it is a perfectly valid claim when backed with references, and is preferable to circumlocution (has won this or that tournament, tops this or that list). I'm even considering reinserting it, but I'm not sure at the moment; the current intro is reasonably clear. GregorB (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Leaving out this kind of peacock phrase does not hide an important fact, because "Rybka is the best" is not an observable fact. Rybka's achievements in the rating lists and matches against other engines should speak for themselves; making this kind of assertion does not help us, unless we are selling something. The following passage from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy is illuminating:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.
When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.
Simply put, we should stick to the facts. That Rybka is the strongest engine is not a fact; it's an opinion that depends on many other assumptions (What makes an engine the "strongest"? Rating performance, or match performance? Under that metric, Zappa would be "stronger") that are up to the reader. ⟳ausa کui × 22:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Rybka is the strongest chess engine" is as appropriate as "the Pacific Ocean is Earth's largest ocean". Relative chess playing strength can be (and has been) measured in a reliable manner, I wouldn't say that it's a matter of opinion. GregorB (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, this is not the case. We are not talking about reasonable dispute, but what is in principle a possible subject of dispute. What is reliable is that Rybka leads all the major rating lists. But for the sake of argument, suppose I wanted to say that Zappa is stronger, since Zappa defeated Rybka in a match, and that's how we determine strength among humans. The ensuing hairyness is what the neutrality policy rescues us from; when we only talk about results, we can't get ourselves into trouble. From that perspective, I think we can all agree that Rybka's results speak for themselves. ⟳ausa کui × 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing here, though: saying that Rybka is the strongest based on chess engine rating lists implies that chess playing strength can be reliably measured that way. I believe it is true, but that's precisely the problem: it is neither obvious nor widely accepted. So yes: in a way this would only shift POV one notch further (and add an OR problem, perhaps).
On a side note: intro to Haile Gebrselassie says he is "widely considered as one of the greatest distance runners in history". (Not my line, but I provided five references; I could have added five more without a problem.) This could be construed not only as WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK, but also WP:WEASEL ("widely considered"). However, in this particular case, I believe his intro would be worse without it. GregorB (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right in the case of Haile Gebrselassie. What I think is different about that statement is that it conveys public perception which is a fact that can be reported -- if we had enough reliable sources. If you can find reliable, third-party sources that report on a public perception that Rybka is the strongest chess engine, then we would have something to go on. ⟳ausa کui × 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But apparently there aren't any, so I'd have no trouble leaving it as it is. GregorB (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of something on this subject. I do think Rybka is considered to be sort of dominant on every tournament from the last few years, so I added the fact that Rybka has a strong lead in Elo ratings in all of the lists mentioned. I'm not that happy with the phrasing, so be my guest and change it, but I do believe it says a lot about Rybka the fact that it's rated over 100 Elo above the rest of the competition (around 200 in a few, and about 80 in a couple) 189.145.61.107 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Random reader[reply]

Use of Internet forums as sources

Regarding this edit (which I'd agree with), here are my comments on use of Internet forums as article sources.

For the purpose of this article, rybkaforum.net is a reliable source when forum messages by Rybka's developers such as Rajlich, Kaufman, Noomen, etc. are concerned. Their identity on the Rybka's official forum is unquestionable (i.e. it is certain that "Vasik Rajlich" on the forum actually is Vasik Rajlich). Moreover, on this forum they speak in their official capacity.

Things get trickier for non-official forums, by my take is that, if a person signed as "X" posts a message on a forum, then this source is reliable when:

  1. X is a person whose statements are notable: he or she is notable, an expert, speaks in official capacity, etc. If e.g. Stefan Meyer-Kahlen posts something about computer chess, then it carries weight. If some random guy posts something, then it doesn't.
  2. There isn't a reasonable doubt about the identity of said person on the forum.

These are judgment calls, more or less; #2 is a real problem.

Back to our subject: is Rybka derived from Fruit? There's this. ("I'm just saying that, in my opinion [...], Rybka at time T=0 was Fruit. Then Rajlich started to modify it and finally released Rybka as a proprietary product.") Signed Christophe Théron, so it clearly meets #1. What about #2? I'd say it meets #2, because TalkChess.com is a well-known, high-volume chess forum, and it is quite unlikely that someone there would pose as Christophe Théron. But as I said: it is a judgment call.

Note also this: it is not only unimportant whether he is right or not - it is also unimportant whether he has any arguments or not. I.e. even if it appears to be pure speculation, presented without any supporting evidence, it is his opinion, and is quotable as such.

All this is my take on the issue, not Wikipedia guidelines or such. I'd be interested in your comments. GregorB (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point (I'm the poster of the original edit): some highly qualified chess programmers believe that at t=0, Rybka was Fruit and express this in a highly visible way, in the most important forum on chess programming on the Internet . I just wanted to mention a FACT about an opinion (i.e., "some chess programmers believe Rybka 1.0 beta=Fruit"), and not an unproven FACT (i.e., Rybka 1.0 beta=Fruit). As you say, given the importance and capabilities of Hyatt and Theron, this simply cannot be ignored, and should therefore be described somewhere in the page (possibly in a different way from the one I have proposed, I am not particularly expert on the subject of Wikipedia edits, but I'm sure we can find a way of expressing this here that suits everyone involved). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.117.12 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes: my objection to your edit, though, is that your link points to the entire thread, instead of a particular post. Since a thread is a mixture of "quotable" and "non-quotable" posts, it is not a good source. However, Theron and Hyatt have made a number of comments there. These are recorded public statements, these people are experts, so I think the only question here is do we recognize these posts as authentic. GregorB (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Then we would just have to isolate the two or three strong posts by Theron and Hyatt and reference them in the page. That's certainly something I can do. Oli, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.117.12 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No word from Oli thus far. I'd say you go ahead and do it, citing individual forum posts from these people. The Strelka section could use a little work too, especially because it is directly linked to Rybka-Fruit affair. GregorB (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this reasoning, and I think it is deserving of short mention. We do not want the article to baloon into debates about the controversy. Something like "Xyz developers have publicly speculated that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit.[cite] Rybka developers have categorically denied the claim.[cite]" should be totally sufficient. ⟳ausa کui × 04:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that: three or four sentences is probably enough, unless more is needed for the Five Ws. This is a flaw I see in many articles: examining every little bit of detail in a controversy. It is especially bad when it features excessive quoting. An encyclopedia should paraphrase and summarize. GregorB (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the {unreliable sources} back on the article for just this reason. If any of the rybkaforum refs are especially reliable, please wrap them in {cite web} with an author that we would recognize. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. A forum posting without an identifiable author is worthless as a source, so it is important to cite properly. GregorB (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milov match

I don't see mention of the Milov match in this article. Can we get some info about that here, since it seems to be the most important one? ⟳ausa کui × 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in Human-computer chess matches. I'll add it here soon. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Strength

Removed information about Rybka 1.0 Beta and replaced with 2.2n2, the latest free version. Added comparisons to Rybka 3. Reworded sentence about Rybka's performance boost on 64-bit processors.

Many expert programmers believe that Rybka's evaluation is not its main advantage but rather its search efficiency. Some experts have conjectured that Vas only wished to give the impression of Rybka having a "knowledgeable" evaluation by obfuscating the programs output, that is, by reporting a shallower depth and reducing the actual nodes searched. I think Hyatt and Cozzie would agree with me but the sources are buried on talkchess.com and rybkaforum.net I cannot find them. Is it allowable to add this without sources? MaRTiN (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ippolit

Vasik has not yet established a link between those that informed him of their decompiling errorts through email and Ippolit. What he said might count as an allusion to this so called fact but it cannot necessarily be inferred from his one post linked to from rybkaforum.net. Vasik has yet to make a clear connection between Ippolit/RobboLito and Rybka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.110.216.29 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Ippolit is very bad as it stands now. There are many dubious claims. Also: Ippolit's source is reportedly very odd-looking, bearing many hallmarks of decompilation, which suggests that it's a reverse-engineered Rybka. This is perhaps not a "proof", but is important enough to be mentioned. GregorB (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I don't know where to begin. Even the claims that appear sourced are just forum posts. Of course, Rajlich's posts can be used under WP:SELFPUB. As for IPPOLIT's source code looking reverse-engineered, that can be mentioned if mentioned by a reliable source. I am doing some spring cleaning. decltype (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From deleted comment by '82.217.115.160' : "Why isn't the claim of rybka considered as "original research" ? as they have no proof and is thus as much an opinion to public as much as just reading the various sites around IPPOLIT (as how wikipedia defines orignal research as to be not ok) In my openion Rybka has no proof and is only protecting their commercial product. They have been the number one engine but are beaten. Its a bit sad that such claims are not proven (by a 3th party)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.243.131 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence was removed, with the claim that some of these are in rating lists:

Due to the controversy over the possibility of plagiarism, neither Ippolit nor any of its derivatives (Robbolito, Igorrit, IvanHoe, Firebird, Tankist) have been accepted into computer chess rating lists.

Could you provide a reference? I still don't see any of these in the rating lists mentioned on chess engine (esp. CCRL & CEGT). I think it is notable that regardless of the strength or origin of these engines, they are effectively blacklisted from tournaments and rating agencies. (I'm reminded of Fischer's own self-exile.) --IanOsgood (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that. It had no reference. I have seen a webpage with several of those engines rated, from memory Ippolit and Firebird. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't. I've seen anecdotal estimates based on private matches, but no public listings. Could you provide a link to that rating list? --IanOsgood (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I can't as can't find the link, the link was around Wikipedia somewhere; maybe in a reverted edit or on the deleted Ippolit article. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so any claim that it's not been accepted to a list requires a suitable reference. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the dispute?

I don't see evidence of a dispute here. There's one editor adding unambiguously inappropriate information despite reverts by other editors and not explaining himself on the talk page. Protection is not an appropriate response to disruptive editing by a single editor: blocking is preferred in cases like these. causa sui× 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute. The protection is a response to repeated violation of core content policies and guidelines by anonymous editors. Because the edits are being made from several different IP addresses I have semi-protected the article. decltype (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 19th is an extremely long block for this don't you think? Most of the useful information added to this article comes from anonymous editors. I'm encouraging the use of the block button here so that useful edits won't be prevented: maybe semi-protection would be okay, but certainly not for more than a couple weeks at the most. causa sui× 20:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, the ratio of useful edits to this article from anonymous editors seems awfully low. It's still original research even if it's copyedited. That said, I believe in keeping semi-protections as short as possible for the reasons you mention. I've lifted the semi-protection for now. decltype (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible"; while, "The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts" (Wikipedia 2004npv). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.243.131 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Product for Pocket PCs or Cell Phones

To Causa sui, The tone is justified. They announced products 3 years ago and today there is no product and no release date. It does not take 3 years to put a windows program into cell phone with an existing windows GUI. They are not serious about these products. I want change it to say “But products for Pocket PCs and similar mobile devices were never released.” Mschribr (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite your claim that they are not serious about this product? causa sui (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In 3 years, they have not released the product. It does not take 3 years to release a product. They said they wanted to release rybka for the pocket fritz. So the GUI for a windows program is written. They have to simply port an existing program to compatible platform. That does not take 3 years. I am saying they could have released at least 2 years ago it if they were serious. They were not serious so they did not release it. If they released it tomorrow then they started working on it less than 1 year ago. They should have said this is a low priority product for us. Mschribr (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I read this several times and I don't see the citation. I don't mean to be snarky, but this isn't the kind of judgment we are to be making on Wikipedia, as that would be original research. We stick to the facts and report them. Besides, if it's as obvious as you make it out to be from the fact that they announced the product in 2007 that they aren't taking it seriously, then that ought to be an easy judgment for any reader to make. Better for us to give them the verifiable facts with appropriate citations and let the readers make the judgment for themselves. causa sui (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making a judgment. The article should say they announced a product in 2007 and never released the product. The article should not say they did not take the product seriously. That is for the reader to decide. The citation is they announced a product. There is no citation for not having a product. Just look at their product list there is nothing for Pocket PCs or Cell Phones. “but have yet to materialize” is not clear. It sounds like the product will materialize soon. Saying the “But products for Pocket PCs and similar mobile devices were never released” makes it clear the products were never released. It is not judgment just a fact. Mschribr (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rybka 4

There is an announcement on rybkachess.com that Rybka 4 shall be released sometime in May -- about a month from now. 72.245.213.210 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation Option?

Perhaps consider the following type of presentation (the content of which I think is correct)

This is a list of wins by Rybka from 2005 (may not be complete):

Year Event
2005 15th International Paderborn Computer Chess Championship (IPCCC)
2006 16th IPCCC
Internet Computer Chess Tournament (CCT8)
26th Dutch open computer chess championship
PAL/CSS Freestyle Tournament
2007 CCT9
15th World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC)
27th Dutch open computer chess championship
2nd ACCA Americas' Computer Chess Championships
3rd Chess960 Computer World Championship (CCM8)
2008 CCT10, WCCC16
28th Dutch open computer chess championship
2nd ACCA World Computer Rapid Chess Championship
4th Chess960 Computer World Championship (CCM8)
13th Computer Olympiad
2009 CCT11, WCCC17
3rd World Computer Rapid Chess Championship
29th Dutch open computer chess championship
4th ACCA Americas' Computer Chess Championships
5th Chess960 Computer World Championship (CCM9)
14th Computer Olympiad
2010 30th Dutch open computer chess championship


--Billymac00 (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under section Tournament participations, the link (#18 at the moment) for the 16th International Computer Chess Championship is actually for the 17th and does not work. A working link for the 17th is 17th IPCCC. There are other link issues like #39 (http://chessok.com/?p=512) did not work. Ref link #19 (http://www.cctchess.info/index.html) is also null. Ref #34 (http://chessok.com/?p=508) is also no good. Link #48 (http://www.chesslogik.com/FireBird.htm) is no good. Link #32 (http://chessvine.com/archives/38-A-Little-Fish-Rybka-in-Corporate-Waters.html) is also obsolete. Now, the 3rd xternal link (http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/~IPCCC/) also did not work.
I was unsure if the links should merely be eliminated or ??? --Billymac00 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better Organization

I put the version information into a version section. I put the controversies into a controversy section. These changes seem like obvious improvements, so I'm not going to ask for approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.187.191 (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPON rating list has Houdini as strongest engine.

you should remove the claim that rybka is top-rated engine or delete the reference to IPON rating list... houdini is also top-rated engine in SWCR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtr (talk • contribs) 04:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think both can stand. "Top rated" does not necesseraly mean No.1.

Larry Kaufman is not in charge of the evaluation function anymore

http://www.rybkachess.com/index.php?auswahl=Rybka+team he is as "advisor" because he actually left the team to write Komodo with Don Dailey

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rybka&oldid=408031171"