Rybka 4 is stronger...ergo Rybka 3 was weak
On Jul 8, 10:52*am, RayLopez99 wrote:
A lot of fans of Rybka (Taylor Kingston being one of them) think it's
better because it's more positional. *But the latest Rybka, ver 4, is
more tactical says the author, and much stronger.
*Much* stronger, Phil? I think this might be what SOME people
to as 'hyperbole.' It is after all the job of the marketing
individual to trumpet the strengths of a new product in order to
sales -- and hopefully, profits.
An admission that the previous "positional" Rybka was flawed.
Just like I always knew and suspected.
Just *as* you always knew and suspected. Haven't the many
spell-checking nutters here in rgc taught you anything?
I bought a program which claimed to have won several awards for the
allegedly high quality of its game annotations. But so far this
commentaries regarding the games I've fed it have been just plain
In one example it said something to the effect that a different
would have saved the game, but then spat out a numerical evaluation
that 'saving move' which clearly indicated otherwise. Sloppy work.
And if you wish to watch and learn as the program analyses you will
find that rather difficult as it is always examining a position that
not currently appear on the graphic chessboard. Often it appears to
considering illegal moves, although I've yet to see it recommend one
But these are mere nitpicks. My main complaint is that the
of the time, the program just spits out stupid output (not unlike
trolls around these parts). How could they have won several awards
this slop? Are such awards handed out like candy on Halloween?
I would like to see some examples of these purported awards. Maybe
those games were just anomalies.