100 long games Rybka 4 vs Houdini 1.03a

[Laskos]

I do not like Ippolit derivatives because I prefer engine with known authors.

You answered me to Milos. That is why you are making such statements. It's fine, I have no preferences in this sense, the truth is better without preferences. Isn't it blind?

Kai

[M ANSARI]

This is simply not correct.

20 elo is not a year and we usually get more than 20 elo per year in software(if you compare rybka with the best software of 2005 you get clearly more than 100 elo) and Rybka clearly earns more speed from 64 bits relative to IvanHoe.

It is exactly correct today and for Rybka (talking about 2005 in 2010 is just wrong). Rybka improved less than 40 elo for more than 2 years.
Anyone thinking Vas could improve more than 40 elo if wanted to is nothing but a dreamer or a fan.

The reason is that Vasik did not care to optimize rybka for 32 bits so the gap between 32 bits and 64 bits is bigger for rybka.

I believe that
Vas can make Rybka 32 bits 20-30% faster but he does not care about it because most customers who use 32 bits do not care about rating.

You believe it, but that's a classic example of wishful thinking. Everyone assumes they know for sure what Vas is capable of, and like always reality strongly refutes them...

Again ??? What the hell is it with you and Vas. Why are you so jealous of Vas that you continuously try to portray him as someone who has no clue how to make a strong chess engine. Most of the people here on this forum have seen the progress of Rybka 1 beta to Rybka 4 and I am pretty sure that most would agree that there has been some progress with every new iteration of Rybka.

The fact is that Vas was able to improve his engine in strength at a pace that would have seemed highly unlikely before Rybka came along. It was a few points from Shredder here, maybe a few points from Fritz there ... but progress seemed to have hit a wall UNTIL Rybka came along. You obviously don't seem to remember that, or at least are suffering from selective amnesia.

The problem that most have with Rybka is that some of the simple (yet seemingly easy to fix) bugs were not taken care of in a manner most would have expected or would have liked. I don't really blame them as I consider myself one of those disappointed customers, and if this discussion was that Rybka could improve in the area of attempting to fix bugs in a timely manner, or improve customer satisfaction in general, I would be first in line. But please don't try to make it seem like Vas can't make improvements on an engine he has consistently shown huge gains in strength, because there is volumes of data that show otherwise.

[Ralph Stoesser]

@Kai
Ultra fast tc do favour Ippo*. I've seen it against Stockfish. No chance for SF at 1 sec against robbo*. But at 20 sec tc the situation changes.

Chess Engines are not optimized for such fast tc. Your test at best proves that Ippo* is little better at ultra fast tc. At reasonable tc rybka seems to be stronger than all ippos.

[Laskos]

@Kai
Ultra fast tc do favour Ippo*. I've seen it against Stockfish. No chance for SF at 1 sec against robbo*. But at 20 sec tc the situation changes.

Chess Engines are not optimized for such fast tc. Your test at best proves that Ippo* is little better at ultra fast tc. At reasonable tc rybka seems to be stronger than all ippos.

The average game length is 12-13 seconds (increment of 0.1 sec.). I think ultrafast TC favour Rybka too, before Ippos Rybka was trashing every other engine at these TC. And I do not believe in inversions at longer TC, only more draws, therefore maybe a little smaller difference in Elo points. Besides that, Ippos and Rybka behave similarly with respect to TC, and with respect to many things, probably because Ippos are Rybkish. They are Rybkish, but now they are stronger than Rybka 4.

Kai

[M ANSARI]

@Kai
Ultra fast tc do favour Ippo*. I've seen it against Stockfish. No chance for SF at 1 sec against robbo*. But at 20 sec tc the situation changes.

Chess Engines are not optimized for such fast tc. Your test at best proves that Ippo* is little better at ultra fast tc. At reasonable tc rybka seems to be stronger than all ippos.

The average game length is 12-13 seconds (increment of 0.1 sec.). I think ultrafast TC favour Rybka too, before Ippos Rybka was trashing every other engine at these TC. And I do not believe in inversions at longer TC, only more draws, therefore maybe a little smaller difference in Elo points. Besides that, Ippos and Rybka behave similarly with respect to TC, and with respect to many things, probably because Ippos are Rybkish. They are Rybkish, but now they are stronger than Rybka 4.

Kai

With all due respect, at such fast time controls many issues can affect results. Issues like how the OS and hardware deal with processes, how they deal with timing issues etc. A tiny change in your process prioritization can totally skew results. A process based engine might not perform as well as a thread based engine as they might have different latencies every time an engine is intitialized (which is many times in ponder OFF games) ... so a small difference in latencies can have a huge impact on results when you play 12 seconds per games matches. I do think that there is a place for ultra fast games testing, but they should be against the same engine with for example minor adjustments to evaluation . Even then those results should only be used as a "pointer" on how to proceed with your testing and this should be later double checked in more detail at more realistic time controls. Ippo engines are very Rybkaish, but they differ in that Rybka uses processes while the other uses threads.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

@Kai
Ultra fast tc do favour Ippo*. I've seen it against Stockfish. No chance for SF at 1 sec against robbo*. But at 20 sec tc the situation changes.

Chess Engines are not optimized for such fast tc. Your test at best proves that Ippo* is little better at ultra fast tc. At reasonable tc rybka seems to be stronger than all ippos.

The average game length is 12-13 seconds (increment of 0.1 sec.). I think ultrafast TC favour Rybka too, before Ippos Rybka was trashing every other engine at these TC. And I do not believe in inversions at longer TC, only more draws, therefore maybe a little smaller difference in Elo points. Besides that, Ippos and Rybka behave similarly with respect to TC, and with respect to many things, probably because Ippos are Rybkish. They are Rybkish, but now they are stronger than Rybka 4.

Kai

With all due respect, at such fast time controls many issues can affect results. Issues like how the OS and hardware deal with processes, how they deal with timing issues etc. A tiny change in your process prioritization can totally skew results. A process based engine might not perform as well as a thread based engine as they might have different latencies every time an engine is intitialized (which is many times in ponder OFF games) ... so a small difference in latencies can have a huge impact on results when you play 12 seconds per games matches. I do think that there is a place for ultra fast games testing, but they should be against the same engine with for example minor adjustments to evaluation . Even then those results should only be used as a "pointer" on how to proceed with your testing and this should be later double checked in more detail at more realistic time controls. Ippo engines are very Rybkaish, but they differ in that Rybka uses processes while the other uses threads.

Here I have to totally agree and that's why I hate such time controls....one of the reasons that is....
Dr.D

[Graham Banks]

@Kai
Ultra fast tc do favour Ippo*. I've seen it against Stockfish. No chance for SF at 1 sec against robbo*. But at 20 sec tc the situation changes.

Chess Engines are not optimized for such fast tc. Your test at best proves that Ippo* is little better at ultra fast tc. At reasonable tc rybka seems to be stronger than all ippos.

The average game length is 12-13 seconds (increment of 0.1 sec.). I think ultrafast TC favour Rybka too, before Ippos Rybka was trashing every other engine at these TC. And I do not believe in inversions at longer TC, only more draws, therefore maybe a little smaller difference in Elo points. Besides that, Ippos and Rybka behave similarly with respect to TC, and with respect to many things, probably because Ippos are Rybkish. They are Rybkish, but now they are stronger than Rybka 4.

Kai

With all due respect, at such fast time controls many issues can affect results. Issues like how the OS and hardware deal with processes, how they deal with timing issues etc. A tiny change in your process prioritization can totally skew results. A process based engine might not perform as well as a thread based engine as they might have different latencies every time an engine is intitialized (which is many times in ponder OFF games) ... so a small difference in latencies can have a huge impact on results when you play 12 seconds per games matches. I do think that there is a place for ultra fast games testing, but they should be against the same engine with for example minor adjustments to evaluation . Even then those results should only be used as a "pointer" on how to proceed with your testing and this should be later double checked in more detail at more realistic time controls. Ippo engines are very Rybkaish, but they differ in that Rybka uses processes while the other uses threads.

Here I have to totally agree and that's why I hate such time controls....one of the reasons that is....
Dr.D

It must be pretty difficult to enjoy the chess when you can't even follow the games. Seems rather pointless, but just my opinion.
It does seem to have a use for authors testing newer versions against older ones though as already mentioned.

[Laskos]

@Kai
Ultra fast tc do favour Ippo*. I've seen it against Stockfish. No chance for SF at 1 sec against robbo*. But at 20 sec tc the situation changes.

Chess Engines are not optimized for such fast tc. Your test at best proves that Ippo* is little better at ultra fast tc. At reasonable tc rybka seems to be stronger than all ippos.

The average game length is 12-13 seconds (increment of 0.1 sec.). I think ultrafast TC favour Rybka too, before Ippos Rybka was trashing every other engine at these TC. And I do not believe in inversions at longer TC, only more draws, therefore maybe a little smaller difference in Elo points. Besides that, Ippos and Rybka behave similarly with respect to TC, and with respect to many things, probably because Ippos are Rybkish. They are Rybkish, but now they are stronger than Rybka 4.

Kai

With all due respect, at such fast time controls many issues can affect results. Issues like how the OS and hardware deal with processes, how they deal with timing issues etc. A tiny change in your process prioritization can totally skew results. A process based engine might not perform as well as a thread based engine as they might have different latencies every time an engine is intitialized (which is many times in ponder OFF games) ... so a small difference in latencies can have a huge impact on results when you play 12 seconds per games matches. I do think that there is a place for ultra fast games testing, but they should be against the same engine with for example minor adjustments to evaluation . Even then those results should only be used as a "pointer" on how to proceed with your testing and this should be later double checked in more detail at more realistic time controls. Ippo engines are very Rybkaish, but they differ in that Rybka uses processes while the other uses threads.

No latency in LB 2.5, it measures only initialized engines. And Rybka 4 uses 8% more time than that particular IvanHoe tested without losing on time a single game, therefore I think there are no issues with bad time control. Exactly the opposite, if IvanHoe time control would be the same, then it would be additional 7-8 Elo points stronger.

As a rule for testers here:

1) Statistics

2) Everything else.

If Rybka team of testers is not testing their engine in matches of 30,000+ games (irrespective of time controls), they are incompetent. I know that they are incompetent because Rybka 4 is weaker by quite a bit compared to lateast Ippos. Stop whining here, Rybka 4 is weaker than latest Ippos at ANY time control, period.

ps About watching the games, you here, at CCC, all sort of crappy testers, are some sort of Kasparovs. Frankly, please, don't watch the games.

[Graham Banks]

Rybka 4 is weaker than latest Ippos at ANY time control, period.

Haven't seen the evidence of that, not that I really care anyway. Not everybody is interested in taking something that "fell off the back of a truck".

[Uri Blass]

Rybka 4 is weaker than latest Ippos at ANY time control, period.

Haven't seen the evidence of that, not that I really care anyway. Not everybody is interested in taking things that "fall off the back of a truck".

totally agree

Rybka4 64 bit is 5 elo better than Ivanhoe 64 bits in SWCR rating list
based on Frank Quisinsky.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36472

1 Rybka 4 x64 2944 18 18 1440 82% 2687 28%
2 IvanHoe T0.4 x64 2939 21 21 920 79% 2720 32%