Luke skywalker has done it again.

[rbarreira]

I hope this is just an April's Fool's joke.

It can't be, as it was not published on April the 1st... So it's either true or a regular hoax.

[G.B. Harms]

I hope this is just an April's Fool's joke.

It can't be, as it was not published on April the 1st... So it's either true or a regular hoax.

"On March 31 the author of the Rybka program, Vasik Rajlich, and his family moved from Warsaw, Poland to a new appartment in Budapest, Hungary. The next day, in spite of the bustle of moving boxes and setting up phone and Internet connections Vas, kindly agreed to the following interview, which had been planned some months ago."


I find it a very good one!

[rbarreira]

I hope this is just an April's Fool's joke.

It can't be, as it was not published on April the 1st... So it's either true or a regular hoax.

"On March 31 the author of the Rybka program, Vasik Rajlich, and his family moved from Warsaw, Poland to a new appartment in Budapest, Hungary. The next day, in spite of the bustle of moving boxes and setting up phone and Internet connections Vas, kindly agreed to the following interview, which had been planned some months ago."


I find it a very good one!

It is cleverly written, but you can't just publish something on any day of the year and call it an April Fools' joke just because you mention that date somewhere in the article. That is rather lame...

[G.B. Harms]

I hope this is just an April's Fool's joke.

It can't be, as it was not published on April the 1st... So it's either true or a regular hoax.

"On March 31 the author of the Rybka program, Vasik Rajlich, and his family moved from Warsaw, Poland to a new appartment in Budapest, Hungary. The next day, in spite of the bustle of moving boxes and setting up phone and Internet connections Vas, kindly agreed to the following interview, which had been planned some months ago."


I find it a very good one!

It is cleverly written, but you can't just publish something on any day of the year and call it an April Fools' joke just because you mention that date somewhere in the article. That is rather lame...

I understand what you mean. However in Netherlands many April 1st jokes are announced in magazines, newspapers, etc. before that day, but mentioning that day. Here it is written after that day but mentioning that day. That's about the same, just more clever imo.

[Graham Banks]

April Fool's A bit late.

Depends on the place.

You mean like Pago Pago?

[Graham Banks]

I hope this is just an April's Fool's joke.

It can't be, as it was not published on April the 1st... So it's either true or a regular hoax.

I believe that it was very late on April 1st depending on which country you're looking at.

[michiguel]

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047

King's gambit "weakly solved" by Vas. Admit it. This guy definately knows what he does

Solved is the wrong word. Maybe the best move the computer could come up with is more like it.

This whole thing comes down to the validity of the assumption that if Rybka scores 5.12 or more, it is a win with 99.99999999% certainty and that it follows that this happens to be the same certainty for the entire results.

I really have a difficult time with both those assumptions and I want to know how he came up with that value. This is about 1 in 10 billion positions! That means if you sacrifice a queen, or a rook plus a pawn or two that you automatically lose (except once every 10,000,000,000 times.)

I have to say that I think this is utter nonsense, my years of experience in computer chess and other games tells me that no matter what the "score" reported by the program (other than Mate) there are holes in the knowledge and search that can make this go wrong.

The number seems to be a poetic license picked in a conversation with a journalist, rather than a number you write in a paper. Like a teen ager saying I am super-hyper-duper-sure, so I am 99.9999.... etc.

The bottom line is, there is a 100% probabilities to reach a position +5.12 in rybka scale for black after 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf5 d6.

Or, this system returns

Code: Select all

3... d6 :-) >+5.12 

(I hope some people pick my joke)

Miguel

Yes, I see it...and why are people giving this article any credence??? I mean really...

I am not so sure you got my joke (the smiley output), only a Gaviota fan will get it, and there only very few.

Anyway, +5.12 I am pretty sure was an old Rybka bug when the output got stuck in that number. I do not have rybka but I remember the complaints.

Miguel
EDIT: A further article should refute this one because Be2 is loses based on an underpromotion

[michiguel]

I hope this is just an April's Fool's joke.

It can't be, as it was not published on April the 1st... So it's either true or a regular hoax.

"On March 31 the author of the Rybka program, Vasik Rajlich, and his family moved from Warsaw, Poland to a new appartment in Budapest, Hungary. The next day, in spite of the bustle of moving boxes and setting up phone and Internet connections Vas, kindly agreed to the following interview, which had been planned some months ago."


I find it a very good one!

It is cleverly written, but you can't just publish something on any day of the year and call it an April Fools' joke just because you mention that date somewhere in the article. That is rather lame...

Yes, lame beyond belief.

Miguel

[Don]

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047

King's gambit "weakly solved" by Vas. Admit it. This guy definately knows what he does

Solved is the wrong word. Maybe the best move the computer could come up with is more like it.

This whole thing comes down to the validity of the assumption that if Rybka scores 5.12 or more, it is a win with 99.99999999% certainty and that it follows that this happens to be the same certainty for the entire results.

I really have a difficult time with both those assumptions and I want to know how he came up with that value. This is about 1 in 10 billion positions! That means if you sacrifice a queen, or a rook plus a pawn or two that you automatically lose (except once every 10,000,000,000 times.)

I have to say that I think this is utter nonsense, my years of experience in computer chess and other games tells me that no matter what the "score" reported by the program (other than Mate) there are holes in the knowledge and search that can make this go wrong.

The number seems to be a poetic license picked in a conversation with a journalist, rather than a number you write in a paper. Like a teen ager saying I am super-hyper-duper-sure, so I am 99.9999.... etc.

The bottom line is, there is a 100% probabilities to reach a position +5.12 in rybka scale for black after 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf5 d6.

Or, this system returns

Code: Select all

3... d6 :-) >+5.12 

(I hope some people pick my joke)

Miguel

Yes, I see it...and why are people giving this article any credence??? I mean really...

I am not so sure you got my joke (the smiley output), only a Gaviota fan will get it, and there only very few.

Anyway, +5.12 I am pretty sure was an old Rybka bug when the output got stuck in that number. I do not have rybka but I remember the complaints.

Miguel

I think Larry told me that this was not a bug but was done on purpose but I don't remember the details. But it does lend credence to the idea that this is a joke.

It seems like a pretty silly joke if it is, try to make fools out of your customers by saying stuff that makes you look stupid!

But I'm inclined to believe it's a joke now - that Be2 is the only line that holds a draw seems rather silly.


Don

[Graham Banks]

...It seems like a pretty silly joke if it is, try to make fools out of your customers by saying stuff that makes you look stupid!

But I'm inclined to believe it's a joke now - that Be2 is the only line that holds a draw seems rather silly.


Don

An April's Fool joke is only a good one if it sucks a lot of people in.
I'd imagine that most of us have probably been sucked in by one at some stage.