Talk:Rybka

old talk

The name 'Rybka' is a little joke, since one of the world champions' 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... Could it mean that this small Rybka will escape even Fischer? --Ioannes Pragensis 08:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to see some information on how Rybka differs from other engines. Is any such information available?

This 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)

The second line of the article states that Rybka leads all computer chess rating lists. It has won many tournaments that are indistinguishable from the "world championship" with regard to the format and the number of rounds. As for the world championship, with so few rounds the winner is basically the engine that manages less draws than the others against lesser opposition, which was the case that night. Dionyseus 07:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That might be so, and your point about how such tourneys tend to be very short, and hence the 'dependance on 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, stating that it is top ranked in rating lists and has won many tournaments, 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)

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)

Czech is my mother tongue 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)

"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 tongue, so he knows the word as a Czech world. What you put above is 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)

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)

Not sure about Czech, but in Polish "rybka" is a term of endearment one can use on any woman or child, regardless of looks. "She", because rybka is grammatically feminine. 89.64.81.13 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Co robisz, rybko? 46.215.54.217 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is no claim here it is the strongest or best. -Koppapa (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Can you cite your claim that they are not serious about this product? causa sui (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reference link issues

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)

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)

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)
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.

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtr (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The ICGA's Open Letter

ICGA Open Letter

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

investigation files

ICGA Ruling Potentially Libelous

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)

No matter what ICGA presented in their ruling, this organization is not a court of law. For example, if Fox News alleges that Barack Obama is a terrorist\born in Africa whatever, it does not mean that it was true. Such statements require definitive court ruling. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's important to remember that this information in the context of the CCWC. The ICGA sets the rules, and it alone decides whether or not they were violated. Before the panel's verdict, it had been accused, then the panel found it guilty. There is certainly no 'libel' issue in reporting the ICGA's verdict. However I did clarify that it was ICGA panel that ruled on this, to make it clearer.

Also, none of the panel members found him innocent, and no programmer has offered any defense. Even Vas himself didn't offer any real defense to the charges.

Binarylust, there are many flaws in your argument. However your opinions about the ICGA, its rulings and finding etc. are not relevant to Wikipedia. I suggest your read the report in full as well as the many discussions taking place on chess forums for answers to your questions. Wikieditorpro (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't many flaws in my argument. If you find something you don't like state it. But to give a general blanket statement like that is, frankly, of the same mentality that I find troubling with the ICGA. I am a Software Engineer by Trade and I have a legal background. I read the reports. These reports are not conclusive at all. Also, the reports are very petty in their language. But to make things clearer for you. From the American Legal perspective this ruling is potentially libelous. I find it difficult for you NOT to understand this. It is OK to state an opinion which is protected by the First Amendment but this organization Ruled that this was a true statement (as I have already discussed). This subtlety may be a little difficult for you to understand but it is Very Important. In addition, this relates to a commercial product which exposes the author to damages. As to Vas not offering a defense as some type of justification (which the report repeats over and over), is meaningless. He doesn't have to prove his innocence and lack thereof doesn't prove his guilt...you understand this right? As to no one finding him "innocent" is further proof of the ICGA bias. Look at the committee that worked on it. There are a few dozen people that voted on this one way or another (although the final committee was the "official" vote). In a murder trial you would be hard pressed to find such unanimity even with very strong evidence. But as a software engineer who reviewed the data, who works in Silicon Valley, the evidence is FAR from conclusive which is NECESSARY to make a DAMAGING statement to someone's reputation and product. To not have any, any dissent is laughable and only points to unclear motivations by Rybka's competitors. BinaryLust (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the section in question is in violation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. The information presented is very well referenced, using quality third-party sources such as The Washington Times and Metro. Additionally, I would be careful to make comments that could possibly be perceived as a legal threat on-wiki. I'm not saying you have done so, just thought I'd make you aware of a core policy on this matter. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious?? I'm the one warning about Wikipedia getting caught up in legal issues. The same "worry" you have about me is precisely what I'm talking about here concerning Wikipedia. Even the perception of libel against a living person is a serious issue which should be avoided at all costs. That is the entire point of the conversation. I think you miss what I'm trying to say. Frankly, what you have done is threaten me using that same worry. Wild. Anyway, as to your references, this story is not that big. All the articles are doing is citing the results of the ICGA which are downloadable from a link up above. Not to mention, references are not the issue. It seems that you equate "reference" with the validity of the results. This is another illogical point. I recommend you reread everything and take another look. IMHO you do not appear to be objective here which is precisely what I'm trying to do for the article. Even the writing of the ICGA controversy in the Article is BIASED and uses inappropriate language, IRRESPECTIVE of the results. Even on Vas's page, the writing is designed to convey a non-neutral exposition of the issue which favors the ICGA.BinaryLust (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you, just advising you to be careful with comments such as "...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*)". I have no opinion whatsoever about the validity of the results. Not that it would have any impact of my evaluation of this section. Unlike the rest of this article, I fail to see any violation of neither the verifiability policy, the biographies of living persons policy, nor the neutral point of view policy. Note especially the NPOV policy lede: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. You have reviewed the evidence, and deemed that it doesn't hold water. Fair enough, but unless this POV can be supported by sources (thus making it a significant view), it amounts to little more than original research. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.^(WP:NPOV) Regards, decltype (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right on one point, I did indeed misconstrue one of your comments, and have redacted mine accordingly. decltype (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajlich - no response to banning?

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) 

Riis article

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)

• Here it is. causa sui (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Forum moderator", "Rybka distributor"

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)

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)

Crafty

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)