Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:52:18 12/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2005 at 06:06:15, Günther Simon wrote: >On December 29, 2005 at 04:58:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 29, 2005 at 03:30:49, Günther Simon wrote: >> >>>On December 28, 2005 at 21:13:25, Gustavo Bedoya wrote: >>> >>>>Hi all >>>>I'm rather new here , and I know that Rybka is the >>>>outstanding engine nowadays. >>>>But Surprisingly I've read it lost a game with an (excuse me if I'm >>>>wrong)inferior engine. I read that Rybka is not playing with full strngth >>>>because if so, it would be so easy for Rybka. >>>>I ask all the experts in this Topics if Rybka is really the strongest engine of >>>>all time, an how can be so stronger than others, what is different in its source >>>>code that makes it so lethal,( in my modest engine matches games, Rybka crushes >>>>every engine one after one, excepting Fritz9 in the ChessBase interface +5=2-5). >>>>And in the future it can be cloned and there will be stronger engines every >>>>year, even every mounth? >>>>I'll be happy with all your opinions >>>>Best Regards >>> >>>1. To be out of range for an occasionally loss against other programs, >>>you must be >= ~750 rating points better. This means even strong Rybka >>>can lose occasionally against around 100 different programs and Spike >>>is surely one of the best in that field. >>> >>>2. No source is published, thus how should it be 'cloned'? >>> >>>Guenther >> >>It can be cloned if the computer of the programmer is defected by some trojan >>horse so somebody can steal the source. >> >>Another way without trojan horse is simply stilling the computer that rybka is >>developed in it. >> >>Uri > >I guess the chance that someone infects your computer with a trojan >and steals Moveis source is much higher, >than trying the same on Vas' development machine. > >Why not apply more common sense instead of inflating bandwidth >with 'least probability' games, except for funny irony reasons? > >After hundreds of similar posts they are just not that funny >anymore ;) It is not necessary to add all (low probability) >circumstances to a Human sentence, as people agreed to use >language in a more efficient way. Thus please don't add 'answers' >and 'conditions' you can safely assume they know already or are >simply far from significance. > >Guenther Please would you let others write what they want to write just like you write what you want to write. It's a gross impoliteness to tell others - mostly adults - what they should write! How you interprete messages this is alone your business of course.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.