The name 'Rybka' is a little joke, since one of the world champions' name is Fischer (close to fisher)
The name "Rybka" is rather a Polish word. It doesn't sound like a Czech word and this word exists in the polish language(Vasik's wife is from Poland)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following line keeps being deleted and re-added:
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)
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
Due to the emergence of Houdini, the Ippolit series engines and the up-and-coming Stockfish, Rybka's claim to being the best engine is dubious. Even the claim of "best commercially available engine", which I suppose implies that the software must be paid for (Houdini, the Ippolit series, and Stockfish, are all free). Also, "best" is a subjective designation; even among humans, the player with the highest chess rating isn't necessarily the best player. While Rybka may have been an unqualified best two years ago, it's not true anymore. Also, Rybka's dominance in current tournaments exists with tournaments in which Houdini and the Ippolit series are not allowed to compete.Tom Barrister 02:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following sentence was removed, with the claim that some of these are in 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)
"Finally some people have expressed doubts that a super strong chess engine like IPPOLIT could simply appear out of nowhere." Citation to "some people" should be deleted. Anyway, like most groundbreaking products, Rybka appeared out of nowhere, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.192.193 ( talk) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think both can stand. "Top rated" does not necesseraly mean No.1.
That is fucking nonsense. Houdini is easily the strongest engine in the world. It's just that within the computer chess world, speaking openly about Houdini's superiority is not "politically correct." Due to baseless accusations on the part of Rybka's author that Houdini is a clone of Rybka.
As has been stated, even if it was a clone, Rybka is already a Fruit clone.
Houdini is the strongest engine in the world and Rybka has not a leg to stand on, being touted as such.
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtr ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
announcement
Rybka Disqualified and Banned from World Computer Chess Championships
David Levy - ICGA President
June 28th 2011
The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit. The ICGA has considered and evaluated the evidence presented to the investigation panel and the report prepared by the panel's Secretariat. (The report and evidence files are attached.) We would like to thank those members of the panel who contributed to this investigation and the Secretariat for the enormous amount of conscientious work they have put in to this matter.
By a unanimous 5-0 decision of executive members of the ICGA we find ourselves in agreement with the verdict of the Secretariat's report. We are convinced that the evidence against Vasik Rajlich is both overwhelming in its volume and beyond reasonable question in its nature. Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit, and has violated the ICGA's tournament rules with respect to the World Computer Chess Championships in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Specifically, Vasik Rajlich, on all five occasions, violated Tournament Rule 2 which requires that:
Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
By claiming other programmers' work as his own, and failing to comply with the abovementioned rule, Vasik Rajlich has unfairly been awarded one shared 2nd-3rd place (in 2006) and four World Computer Chess Championship titles (in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010). Furthermore, it seems to the ICGA that Vasik Rajlich clearly knew that he was in the wrong in doing so, since he has repeatedly denied plagiarizing the work of other programmers.
The ICGA regards Vasik Rajlich's violation of the abovementioned rule as the most serious offence that a chess programmer and ICGA member can commit with respect to his peers and to the ICGA. During the course of the investigation and upon presentation of the Secretariat's report Vasik Rajlich did not offer, despite repeated invitations from the ICGA to do so, any kind of defence to the allegations, or to the evidence, or to the Secretariat's report, other than to claim in an e-mail to myself on May 13th 2011 that:
Rybkahas does not "include game-playing code written by others", aside from standard exceptions which wouldn't count as 'game-playing'.
The vague phrase "derived from game-playing code written by others" also does not in my view apply to Rybka.
The ICGA is of the view that such a serious offence deserves to be met with correspondingly serious sanctions against the perpetrator. In deciding on appropriate sanctions the ICGA has borne in mind the approach of the International Olympic Committee for dealing with the most serious cases of the violations of its rules.
The ICGA has therefore decided as follows:
[1] Vasik Rajlich is hereby disqualified from the World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC) of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
[2] The 2nd-3rd place awarded to the program called "Rajlich" in the 2006 WCCC is hereby annulled, sole 2nd place is awarded to the program Shredder, and 3rd place in that event is awarded to the program Zappa.
[3] The 1st places and World Computer Chess Champion titles awarded to the program Rybka in the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 WCCCs are hereby annulled, and all the other programs that competed in those events are moved up in the final tournament standings by one place. Thus the revised tournament standings and titles for those events will now be as follows.
2007
1st Zappa (World Champion) 2nd Loop =3rd GridChess =3rd Shredder
2008
1st Hiarcs (World Champion) 2nd Junior 3rd Cluster Toga
2009
=1st Junior (Joint World Champion) =1st Shredder (Joint World Champion) =1st Deep Sjeng (Joint World Champion)
2010
=1st Rondo (Joint World Champion) =1st Thinker (Joint World Champion) 3rd Shredder
[4] In due course those programmers whose programs have been elevated to World Champion (or joint World Champion) status will receive from the ICGA replicas of the Shannon trophy for the appropriate years.
[5] The plaques on the Shannon trophy that currently bear the name Rybka (for the years 2007-2010) will be removed from the trophy and new plaques will be engraved with the names of the revised winners of the title.
[6] Similarly, the titles of World Computer Speed (Blitz) Chess Champion that were awarded to Rybka in 2009 and 2010 are hereby annulled. The revised winners of the speed chess title for those years are therefore:
2009 Shredder
2010 Jonny and Shredder (joint champions)
[7] Vasik Rajlich is banned for life from competing in the World Computer Chess Championship or any other event organized by or sanctioned by the ICGA.
[8] The ICGA demands that Vasik Rajlich return to the ICGA the four replicas of the Shannon Trophy presented at the World Computer Chess Championships in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and to return to the ICGA all prize money awarded for Rybka's performances in those events.
David Levy [President - ICGA] June 28th 2011
For below: Yes. Screw the ICGA. They are just jealous. ALL invention builds upon previous inventions and ideas. There is NO novelty 'in a vacuum". Therefore, stop crying and admit that he was just smarter than the rest of you. [anon] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.229.143 ( talk) 13:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just read the open letter and downloaded all the documents. I can't believe how juvenile it all is. At best they banned him for life because they *believed* he plagiarized some work. Note, it isn't wrong by their rules to use others work, just that it must be credited properly. So he essentially broke a procedural rule. Had he just acknowledged some usage he would be OK. For a reasonable person to rule this you would have to prove that in his "heart of hearts" Rybka's author did this intentionally as opposed to mistakenly or not understanding the rules. Simply showing what they perceive to be similarities is far from evidence of this. In addition, RYBKA must be FUNDAMENTALLY different from Fruit or Crafty. Why? It is a far BETTER program than either of them based on ELO; this is a fact. So the ruling seems to be disingenuous to me as basic logic shows that they are fundamentally different programs. In addition, ICGA admits that on average 30% of all programs measure as similar using their metrics. Without a Bell Curve, it is impossible to determine whether 60% or so similarity is 1, 2, 3 or more SD. This is VERY significant. Also, doing some research on this, it looks like this all started in message board "wars." Hardly a proper start to a serious matter that could lead to millions in damages due to lost reputation and career.
Anyway, but what concerns me most from a Wikipedia perspective is that the ruling is potentially Libelous. This is against Wikipedia rules to propagate this type of material until it is worked out. If you download the link up above and read the documents, you see that the evidence is not conclusive and the ruling is done without any debate by, essentially, competitors of RYBKA. Moreover, and this is serious from a legal perspective in American Law (and I believe British too), to label someone as a Plagiarist requires VERY, VERY powerful evidence. You can't just call someone this based off of a committee review which frankly uses circumstantial evidence. In addition, RYBKA is a commercial product meaning that substantial financial loss could develop. The committee is clear in saying "the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs..." They didn't say they "Believed" he plagiarized which is legally defensible under the First Amendment. It is NOT clear. Frankly, if I was Vasik I would have already sued and filed an injunction (being that I write this with my nom de plume not saying I'm a lawyer or anything *wink* *wink*) against this report being published. I've already read about this on other News sites and so his name and product is being tarnished.
So from a legal perspective, I recommend that this part of the article be removed until this issue is resolved by Vasik and the courts. Take Care! BinaryLust ( talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk) 07:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a reference to this Chessvibes article should be included in the '8.1 Response' section other-ways it appears to be an incorrect statement, that his only response (or public discussion) was that brief e-mail (I speak about the video interview with Rajlich after the banning), however I lack the appropriate wikipedia knowledge as to whether this should be included etc. P.S. official Rybka forum link "Vasik Rajlich responds to his accusers"
P.S.2. here is another reference : http://www.onlinechesslessons.net/2011/07/23/cheating-chess-rybka/
I'm considering learning the wikipedia rules (lots of time most likely) and adding the reference myself - since no one in the whole WWW seems to care about this...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.145.108 ( talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A very long article in defense of Rybka by Soren Riis, PhD mathematics and computer science researcher at Queen Mary University, is being published by ChessBase. So far two of three parts have been published. We should make some mention of his arguments once the complete report is on the web. causa sui ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Having these inline is not encyclopedically necessary unless the purpose it to slant reader perceptions that ChessBase.com and Riis are biased or that their arguments should be discounted because of their business/personal associations with Rybka. We don't, for instance, say "The ICGA panel, which was composed mainly of rival chess programmers, found..." because that would be tilting the scales and leading the readers to a favored conclusion. This is no different. causa sui ( talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The section " Crafty chess engine controversy" was edited down in an attempt to address a POV imbalance. Unfortunately in doing so ChrisWhittington ( talk · contribs) removed all references and introduced a POV bias in the opposite direction with unsourced statements by unnamed people from unnamed forums. I've reverted this edit since the old version had the virtue of being vaguely verifiable in its statements, and indeed its central claim that Rybka was plagiarised from Crafty was accepted by the WCCC. Moreover the "counter-claim" that a "private" program (which it was not - it is proprietary, which is different) can't be guilty of plagiarizing an open source program betrays profound ignorance of the nature of open source and copyright law in general, not to mention Crafty's specific license which prohibits distribution without permission. There's a case to be made though that the section should be removed entirely because both sources are self-published, and one has no archive copy that I could find. Hairy Dude ( talk) 19:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The name 'Rybka' is a little joke, since one of the world champions' name is Fischer (close to fisher)
The name "Rybka" is rather a Polish word. It doesn't sound like a Czech word and this word exists in the polish language(Vasik's wife is from Poland)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following line keeps being deleted and re-added:
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)
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
Due to the emergence of Houdini, the Ippolit series engines and the up-and-coming Stockfish, Rybka's claim to being the best engine is dubious. Even the claim of "best commercially available engine", which I suppose implies that the software must be paid for (Houdini, the Ippolit series, and Stockfish, are all free). Also, "best" is a subjective designation; even among humans, the player with the highest chess rating isn't necessarily the best player. While Rybka may have been an unqualified best two years ago, it's not true anymore. Also, Rybka's dominance in current tournaments exists with tournaments in which Houdini and the Ippolit series are not allowed to compete.Tom Barrister 02:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following sentence was removed, with the claim that some of these are in 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)
"Finally some people have expressed doubts that a super strong chess engine like IPPOLIT could simply appear out of nowhere." Citation to "some people" should be deleted. Anyway, like most groundbreaking products, Rybka appeared out of nowhere, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.192.193 ( talk) 17:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I think both can stand. "Top rated" does not necesseraly mean No.1.
That is fucking nonsense. Houdini is easily the strongest engine in the world. It's just that within the computer chess world, speaking openly about Houdini's superiority is not "politically correct." Due to baseless accusations on the part of Rybka's author that Houdini is a clone of Rybka.
As has been stated, even if it was a clone, Rybka is already a Fruit clone.
Houdini is the strongest engine in the world and Rybka has not a leg to stand on, being touted as such.
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtr ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
announcement
Rybka Disqualified and Banned from World Computer Chess Championships
David Levy - ICGA President
June 28th 2011
The International Computer Games Association (ICGA) has been conducting an investigation into allegations that, in the chess program Rybka, the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs: Crafty and Fruit. The ICGA has considered and evaluated the evidence presented to the investigation panel and the report prepared by the panel's Secretariat. (The report and evidence files are attached.) We would like to thank those members of the panel who contributed to this investigation and the Secretariat for the enormous amount of conscientious work they have put in to this matter.
By a unanimous 5-0 decision of executive members of the ICGA we find ourselves in agreement with the verdict of the Secretariat's report. We are convinced that the evidence against Vasik Rajlich is both overwhelming in its volume and beyond reasonable question in its nature. Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit, and has violated the ICGA's tournament rules with respect to the World Computer Chess Championships in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Specifically, Vasik Rajlich, on all five occasions, violated Tournament Rule 2 which requires that:
Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
By claiming other programmers' work as his own, and failing to comply with the abovementioned rule, Vasik Rajlich has unfairly been awarded one shared 2nd-3rd place (in 2006) and four World Computer Chess Championship titles (in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010). Furthermore, it seems to the ICGA that Vasik Rajlich clearly knew that he was in the wrong in doing so, since he has repeatedly denied plagiarizing the work of other programmers.
The ICGA regards Vasik Rajlich's violation of the abovementioned rule as the most serious offence that a chess programmer and ICGA member can commit with respect to his peers and to the ICGA. During the course of the investigation and upon presentation of the Secretariat's report Vasik Rajlich did not offer, despite repeated invitations from the ICGA to do so, any kind of defence to the allegations, or to the evidence, or to the Secretariat's report, other than to claim in an e-mail to myself on May 13th 2011 that:
Rybkahas does not "include game-playing code written by others", aside from standard exceptions which wouldn't count as 'game-playing'.
The vague phrase "derived from game-playing code written by others" also does not in my view apply to Rybka.
The ICGA is of the view that such a serious offence deserves to be met with correspondingly serious sanctions against the perpetrator. In deciding on appropriate sanctions the ICGA has borne in mind the approach of the International Olympic Committee for dealing with the most serious cases of the violations of its rules.
The ICGA has therefore decided as follows:
[1] Vasik Rajlich is hereby disqualified from the World Computer Chess Championships (WCCC) of 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
[2] The 2nd-3rd place awarded to the program called "Rajlich" in the 2006 WCCC is hereby annulled, sole 2nd place is awarded to the program Shredder, and 3rd place in that event is awarded to the program Zappa.
[3] The 1st places and World Computer Chess Champion titles awarded to the program Rybka in the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 WCCCs are hereby annulled, and all the other programs that competed in those events are moved up in the final tournament standings by one place. Thus the revised tournament standings and titles for those events will now be as follows.
2007
1st Zappa (World Champion) 2nd Loop =3rd GridChess =3rd Shredder
2008
1st Hiarcs (World Champion) 2nd Junior 3rd Cluster Toga
2009
=1st Junior (Joint World Champion) =1st Shredder (Joint World Champion) =1st Deep Sjeng (Joint World Champion)
2010
=1st Rondo (Joint World Champion) =1st Thinker (Joint World Champion) 3rd Shredder
[4] In due course those programmers whose programs have been elevated to World Champion (or joint World Champion) status will receive from the ICGA replicas of the Shannon trophy for the appropriate years.
[5] The plaques on the Shannon trophy that currently bear the name Rybka (for the years 2007-2010) will be removed from the trophy and new plaques will be engraved with the names of the revised winners of the title.
[6] Similarly, the titles of World Computer Speed (Blitz) Chess Champion that were awarded to Rybka in 2009 and 2010 are hereby annulled. The revised winners of the speed chess title for those years are therefore:
2009 Shredder
2010 Jonny and Shredder (joint champions)
[7] Vasik Rajlich is banned for life from competing in the World Computer Chess Championship or any other event organized by or sanctioned by the ICGA.
[8] The ICGA demands that Vasik Rajlich return to the ICGA the four replicas of the Shannon Trophy presented at the World Computer Chess Championships in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and to return to the ICGA all prize money awarded for Rybka's performances in those events.
David Levy [President - ICGA] June 28th 2011
For below: Yes. Screw the ICGA. They are just jealous. ALL invention builds upon previous inventions and ideas. There is NO novelty 'in a vacuum". Therefore, stop crying and admit that he was just smarter than the rest of you. [anon] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.229.143 ( talk) 13:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just read the open letter and downloaded all the documents. I can't believe how juvenile it all is. At best they banned him for life because they *believed* he plagiarized some work. Note, it isn't wrong by their rules to use others work, just that it must be credited properly. So he essentially broke a procedural rule. Had he just acknowledged some usage he would be OK. For a reasonable person to rule this you would have to prove that in his "heart of hearts" Rybka's author did this intentionally as opposed to mistakenly or not understanding the rules. Simply showing what they perceive to be similarities is far from evidence of this. In addition, RYBKA must be FUNDAMENTALLY different from Fruit or Crafty. Why? It is a far BETTER program than either of them based on ELO; this is a fact. So the ruling seems to be disingenuous to me as basic logic shows that they are fundamentally different programs. In addition, ICGA admits that on average 30% of all programs measure as similar using their metrics. Without a Bell Curve, it is impossible to determine whether 60% or so similarity is 1, 2, 3 or more SD. This is VERY significant. Also, doing some research on this, it looks like this all started in message board "wars." Hardly a proper start to a serious matter that could lead to millions in damages due to lost reputation and career.
Anyway, but what concerns me most from a Wikipedia perspective is that the ruling is potentially Libelous. This is against Wikipedia rules to propagate this type of material until it is worked out. If you download the link up above and read the documents, you see that the evidence is not conclusive and the ruling is done without any debate by, essentially, competitors of RYBKA. Moreover, and this is serious from a legal perspective in American Law (and I believe British too), to label someone as a Plagiarist requires VERY, VERY powerful evidence. You can't just call someone this based off of a committee review which frankly uses circumstantial evidence. In addition, RYBKA is a commercial product meaning that substantial financial loss could develop. The committee is clear in saying "the programmer Vasik Rajlich plagiarized two other programs..." They didn't say they "Believed" he plagiarized which is legally defensible under the First Amendment. It is NOT clear. Frankly, if I was Vasik I would have already sued and filed an injunction (being that I write this with my nom de plume not saying I'm a lawyer or anything *wink* *wink*) against this report being published. I've already read about this on other News sites and so his name and product is being tarnished.
So from a legal perspective, I recommend that this part of the article be removed until this issue is resolved by Vasik and the courts. Take Care! BinaryLust ( talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk) 07:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
decltype
(
talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a reference to this Chessvibes article should be included in the '8.1 Response' section other-ways it appears to be an incorrect statement, that his only response (or public discussion) was that brief e-mail (I speak about the video interview with Rajlich after the banning), however I lack the appropriate wikipedia knowledge as to whether this should be included etc. P.S. official Rybka forum link "Vasik Rajlich responds to his accusers"
P.S.2. here is another reference : http://www.onlinechesslessons.net/2011/07/23/cheating-chess-rybka/
I'm considering learning the wikipedia rules (lots of time most likely) and adding the reference myself - since no one in the whole WWW seems to care about this...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.145.108 ( talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A very long article in defense of Rybka by Soren Riis, PhD mathematics and computer science researcher at Queen Mary University, is being published by ChessBase. So far two of three parts have been published. We should make some mention of his arguments once the complete report is on the web. causa sui ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Having these inline is not encyclopedically necessary unless the purpose it to slant reader perceptions that ChessBase.com and Riis are biased or that their arguments should be discounted because of their business/personal associations with Rybka. We don't, for instance, say "The ICGA panel, which was composed mainly of rival chess programmers, found..." because that would be tilting the scales and leading the readers to a favored conclusion. This is no different. causa sui ( talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The section " Crafty chess engine controversy" was edited down in an attempt to address a POV imbalance. Unfortunately in doing so ChrisWhittington ( talk · contribs) removed all references and introduced a POV bias in the opposite direction with unsourced statements by unnamed people from unnamed forums. I've reverted this edit since the old version had the virtue of being vaguely verifiable in its statements, and indeed its central claim that Rybka was plagiarised from Crafty was accepted by the WCCC. Moreover the "counter-claim" that a "private" program (which it was not - it is proprietary, which is different) can't be guilty of plagiarizing an open source program betrays profound ignorance of the nature of open source and copyright law in general, not to mention Crafty's specific license which prohibits distribution without permission. There's a case to be made though that the section should be removed entirely because both sources are self-published, and one has no archive copy that I could find. Hairy Dude ( talk) 19:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)