Talk:Rybka

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Critisms 

message: 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:
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of Internet forums as sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's already in Human-computer chess matches. I'll add it here soon. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milov match 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Playing Strength 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ippolit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where's the dispute? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you cite your claim that they are not serious about this product? causa sui (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No Product for Pocket PCs or Cell Phones 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rybka 4 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Presentation Option?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference link issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Better Organization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IPON rating list has Houdini as strongest engine. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Larry Kaufman is not in charge of the evaluation function anymore 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rajlich - no response to banning? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Riis article 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is definitely necessary because their positions cast severe doubt on whether they can be considered subjective. I also don't think that Chessbase could be considered a reliable source given the context that they are financially invested in Rybka. Similarly, if you are quoting the opinion of any of Rybka's rivals, you can write that they are engine developers.Wikieditorpro (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forum moderator", "Rybka distributor" 

message: The section "Crafty chess engine controversy" was  in an attempt to address a POV imbalance. Unfortunately in doing so  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)
thread_title:  Crafty