Luke skywalker has done it again.

[Terry McCracken]

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 ...

Are you really this obtuse? Dan is spot on! It's pretty sad that you would waste hours analyzing an obvious spoof, hopping from forum to forum trying to see if 10^50 Angels are Dancing on the Head of a Pin!

I've better things to do with my time. Including work. I come back hours later and I see what appears to be a troll initiated by you (Otherwise You Bought it Hook, line & Sinker) has several replies giving the appearance that some of our elite membership have been bamboozled by the article. I reply with many as it was hard to believe so many were caught up in this incredulous story spun by some rather oblique imaginations at Chessbase.

[Daniel Shawul]

Are you really this obtuse? Dan is spot on! It's pretty sad that you would waste hours analyzing an obvious spoof, hopping from forum to forum trying to see if 10^50 Angels are Dancing on the Head of a Pin!

I've better things to do with my time. Including work. I come back hours later and I see what appears to be a troll initiated by you (Otherwise You Bought it Hook, line & Sinker) has several replies giving the appearance that some of our elite membership have been bamboozled by the article. I reply with many as it was hard to believe so many were caught up in this incredulous story spun by some rather oblique imaginations at Chessbase.

Terry whatever the reason you haven't figured it out in 12 minutes. But once it was clear, you flooded the thread with multiple posts telling everyone how gullible they are.. at which time I posted that you yourself are too late.

The rest of your post is junk as usual like when you try to get Rybka threads moved or deleted by flooding.

[jefk]

[quote="Daniel Shawul"]yeah yeah another postmortem specialist wannabe.

yes, with houdini analysis; but in correspondence chess they
also use engines, you know. so ..?

>don't know why you are replying to me [/quote]

wasnt specifically replying to you but simply took the
last message in this thread, so my message was about
the silly chessbase April 1 joke in general.

it would have been funnier if mr Rajlich would have
stated he has rewritten Rybka5 from scratch completely in the
latest Eiffel language including some secret genetic algorithms
and now is beating Houdini 2 with an extra 90 rating points.

but apparently the sense of humour varies among
the computer chess afficionado's here..

jef

[Daniel Shawul]

I am sorry it seems I misunderstood you.

[BubbaTough]

Its hard to imagine anyone would believe the conclusion that the Kings Gambit is lost for white unless he plays 3 Be2! and then its drawn. I guess I have fallen for some pretty silly April fools jokes myself. The fact that some people actually believed it here made it a pretty good joke to me, independent of the date.

-Sam

[pichy]

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

To me this subject is going into a loop
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=

[Adam Hair]

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

Very few.

Code: Select all

:-)

[Terry McCracken]

I am sorry it seems I misunderstood you.

Thread view is poor, I assume you're addressing me?

If you are I accept your apology.

[Uri Blass]

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 understand that it was a joke but I disagree with your conclusions that almost no big sacrifice works because in theory it is possible that the evaluation of Rybka may give less than 5.12 in case that you sacrifice a queen or a rook and pawns and has a compensation.

I do not know about evaluation that does it but basically programmers may take a pgn of millions games and analyze every position by static evaluation and by search of 1 second.

After the process we are going to find positions when the static evaluation is more than 5.12 and the better side is not winning based on search and include also positions from games when the better side is not winning based on human knowledge.

Then the programmer may start to work to determine evaluation rules
to force these positions to get less than 5.12(because the side that seems to lose has mate chances or other chances that the evaluation should evaluate).

[Daniel Shawul]

Its hard to imagine anyone would believe the conclusion that the Kings Gambit is lost for white unless he plays 3 Be2! and then its drawn. I guess I have fallen for some pretty silly April fools jokes myself. The fact that some people actually believed it here made it a pretty good joke to me, independent of the date.

-Sam

But you have to say this was one was written almost to perfection Sure you will have doubts here and there but they gave you enough reasons to explain them away (rationalize) if you are ready for that. I actually belived the one with "let's check new feature" to be the joke yesterday

Wouldn't it be nice to see your opponent's preparation? Follow what the chess community is currently studying? Or even predict novelties before they are played? Well, it can be done. Our cloud database Let's Check creates a special LiveBook which you can use to look into the future, and follow other people's work – in real time, as it is happening.

Given that I have no idea about "Let's check", that kind of flashy statement and that I was expecting an april's fool joke made it hard. The other aritcle with chess + billiards sounds odd at first but easy to find out it is true.