Luke skywalker has done it again.

[Don]

This was good joke, when some "experts" here fell for it!

That's pretty funny how they tricked us into thinking they were morons!

Don

[Daniel Shawul]

Haha now you buy that after saying this

I didn't see it till you posted it. I was the first in the thread to reply. I rarely look at Chessbase anymore. Probably that article to attack the ICGA was the final straw.

You said it is an april fool joke and we said "no it seems to be true", after that 4 hours are gone and you said "look at the PGN with April 1st" header. I have seen other evidences in rybakchess by that time. That is all I am saying. You may have known it was a joke without reading the publication but I urged everyone to read it

[Dan Honeycutt]

Where do you get 4 hours? My post headers say 12 minutes.

Look the headers since our replies to him that it is real NOT his first post. 12:34 - 3:30
Time starts from there and ends on the first evidence Referee. The PGN tag was his input ofcourse.

I still don't see what you're talking about. His first post is 12 minutes after you started the thread.

His next post at 3 hrs 15 min calls it B.S. and says check the header.

Then come a couple of smiles and by his next post everyone is on to the joke. Terry said hoax from the go.

Even he said he didnt see the chessbase article

No, he said he hadn't seen it until you posted it. The 12 minutes between your first post and his fits perfectly with his statement that he gave it a quick resd.

your post is nonsense.

My post is nonsense? Why?

Many things have been talked about by that time.

By what time?

Best
Dan H.

[Dan Honeycutt]

Haha now you buy that after saying this

I didn't see it till you posted it. I was the first in the thread to reply. I rarely look at Chessbase anymore. Probably that article to attack the ICGA was the final straw.

You said it is an april fool joke and we said "no it seems to be true", after that 4 hours are gone and you said "look at the PGN with April 1st" header. I have seen other evidences in rybakchess by that time. That is all I am saying. You may have known it was a joke without reading the publication but I urged everyone to read it

Hmm, it appears you don't understand the phrase "I didn't see it till you posted it." That could explain things.

Best
Dan H.

[Graham Banks]

There are 2 things about this article that make it lame. First, it was posted on April 2nd. Second, Chessbase uses Fischer's name in almost every April fools article.

Still, will be fun to read the readers' feedback

Depends whereabouts in the world you are as to the date.

[Daniel Shawul]

Haha now you buy that after saying this

I didn't see it till you posted it. I was the first in the thread to reply. I rarely look at Chessbase anymore. Probably that article to attack the ICGA was the final straw.

You said it is an april fool joke and we said "no it seems to be true", after that 4 hours are gone and you said "look at the PGN with April 1st" header. I have seen other evidences in rybakchess by that time. That is all I am saying. You may have known it was a joke without reading the publication but I urged everyone to read it

Hmm, it appears you don't understand the phrase "I didn't see it till you posted it." That could explain things.

Best
Dan H.

Hmm, maybe be your dumb that explains things. Seriously I don't know how to explain it any other than what I did above but I will once more:

a) I posted the chessbase link
b) He said aprils fools. ( you say we stop here after 12 minutes... )
c) Then the "challenge" to him comes
- Julien said it could be true sadly ( Later backed out )
- I gave an explanation as to why it would be true
d) Then somebody else said it is most probably a joke but a bad one
e) I said "read the publication before saying Bullshit" . Any Vas hater could say that without reading it.
f) Then finally after four hours the "April 1st PGN tag" is forwarded at which time it is too late.

Everyone was discussing in those 4 hours. If he knew why it was fake he should have said it right there and then when asked.

Anyway I was directly replying to his post from which you should have got the context before deciding to play referee.

[Dan Honeycutt]

Hmm, maybe be your dumb that explains things. Seriously I don't know how to explain it any other than what I did above but I will once more:

a) I posted the chessbase link
b) He said aprils fools. ( you say we stop here after 12 minutes... )
c) Then the "challenge" to him comes
- Julien said it could be true sadly ( Later backed out )
- I gave an explanation as to why it would be true
d) Then somebody else said it is most probably a joke but a bad one
e) I said "read the publication before saying Bullshit" . Any Vas hater could say that without reading it.
f) Then finally after four hours the "April 1st PGN tag" is forwarded at which time it is too late.

Everyone was discussing in those 4 hours. If he knew why it was fake he should have said it right there and then when asked.

Anyway I was directly replying to his post from which you should have got the context before deciding to play referee.

My, my you're rather touchy. He made a point, reiterated the same point later with additional data and you call him too late and me dumb.

Okay, whatever.

Best
Dan H.

[Daniel Shawul]

My, my you're rather touchy. He made a point, reiterated the same point later with additional data and you call him too late and me dumb.

yes later after 4 hours... after everything is settled in all other forums.

Okay, whatever.

well you weren't in the discussion until it is over so ...

[jefk]

3.Be2 ? haha.
Anyone knowing a little bit about chess knows that opening theory,
heavily analyzed by GM's for hundreds of years, doesn't change
that fast. The King's Gambit is a draw, just like chess itself.
The King's Gambit with best play leads to the Kieseritsky gambit,
5...Nf6 Berlin defense variation(*) and the latest -and best- effort
in analyzing this properly imho was done in an ICC email
correspondence game for money in 2009, so i presume they
used their comps rather well, Gutovski - Mellen, 1/2-1/2
jef
(*) 5...Qe7 the Salvio defense is even worse for Black as the queens
are exchanged and White achieves an easy draw, see for example
Langeveld-Dehaybe, IECG email correspondence game.

[Daniel Shawul]

yeah yeah another postmortem specialist wannabe.
For the record, I was not fooled at this (even though I was yesterday) so I don't know why you are replying to me