Luke skywalker has done it again.

[Daniel Shawul]

Well I am not sure that is a good explanation. It said they used Rybka which has a lower branching factor than alpha-beta would give you. That will not give you a proof but you can arrive at probablistic conclusions(Which they claimed to have done 99.99999% accuracy by taking samples of positions of 5.12 advantage). Assuming BF of 34 for min-max alpha-beta = 6 to 7 , and rybka BF < 2 so the numbers quoted are not applicable.
Also they started from king's gambit with a pawn down so to reach a 5.12 you would need to capture a bishop/knight and some positional score. So combine that with the Watson cluster and you may find yourself believing it.

[Albert Silver]

The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke"

For me it was the consecutive "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!

If it's any consolation to those who were unsure, I had several GMs asking me to tell them it was a belated joke. One top player, who never doubted it, told me that he had a friend, an assiduous King's Gambit player, who was freaking out despite his reassurances there was no way this could be serious.

[Daniel Shawul]

The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke"

For me it was the consecutive "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!

If it's any consolation to those who were unsure, I had several GMs asking me to tell them it was a belated joke. One top player, who never doubted it, told me that he had a friend, an assiduous King's Gambit player, who was freaking out despite his reassurances there was no way this could be serious.

I do not believe anyone who has not seen the April 1st references and the pogo pogo reference (clear give aways) will have figured it out by techinical means with in the first hour before those started circulating. Those were the spoilers imo.

[Daniel Shawul]

Infact it is very much possible with the pruning rybka even without considering the 5.12 termination after the gambit.

checkers bf: 10
alpha-beta: sqrt(10) = 3.16
=> Exact proof

chess bf: 35
alpha-beta: sqrt(35) = 5.9
Rybka prunings can definately bring that down to 3.16 i.e level of checkers
=> probablistic proof

If I assume 80 half moves (40 full moves) for game end. Ignoring the second assumption of 5.12 then I have the following.

minmax = 35^80 ~ 10^120 (more than number of atoms in universe)
alpha-beta = 5.9^80 ~ 10^60

And rybka say with 1.8 bf
rybka = 1.7 ^ 80 ~ 10^18
So it is definately possible to apply the methodology as described there.
They also said 10^18 is possible in their explanation.
The only question is if you can prove that the results are accurate with 99.99999% probablility.

[Terry McCracken]

The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke"

For me it was the consecutive "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!

If it's any consolation to those who were unsure, I had several GMs asking me to tell them it was a belated joke. One top player, who never doubted it, told me that he had a friend, an assiduous King's Gambit player, who was freaking out despite his reassurances there was no way this could be serious.

I do not believe anyone who has not seen the April 1st references and the pogo pogo reference (clear give aways) will have figured it out by techinical means with in the first hour before those started circulating. Those were the spoilers imo.

Not true. If you know it's not possible then you know it's not possible with today's hardware and software.

Many know what IBM is doing so that would be an obvious clue if you didn't understand the problem.

Another would be this came out of the blue so it makes little sense to accept any of it at face value.

The date April 1, is above the diagram...Need I say more?

All this is understood in a moment, no need to research anything, a waste of time.

You admit you fell for it at the bottom of page 6.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=50

I told you on page 1 & page 2 it was a hoax.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... w=&start=0

and here..

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=10

I posted a dozen min. after you and again when I got back a couple of hours later, after I finished some work in the yard. While you hopped from forum to forum only to make the false claim I fell for it and Dan Honeycutt was out of touch.

Well the truth is painfully obvious to people who can actually read English and read it well!

[Terry McCracken]

Infact it is very much possible with the pruning rybka even without considering the 5.12 termination after the gambit.

checkers bf: 10
alpha-beta: sqrt(10) = 3.16
=> Exact proof

chess bf: 35
alpha-beta: sqrt(35) = 5.9
Rybka prunings can definately bring that down to 3.16 i.e level of checkers
=> probablistic proof

If I assume 80 half moves (40 full moves) for game end. Ignoring the second assumption of 5.12 then I have the following.

minmax = 35^80 ~ 10^120 (more than number of atoms in universe)
alpha-beta = 5.9^80 ~ 10^60

And rybka say with 1.8 bf
rybka = 1.7 ^ 80 ~ 10^18
So it is definately possible to apply the methodology as described there.
They also said 10^18 is possible in their explanation.
The only question is if you can prove that the results are accurate with 99.99999% probablility.

Are you serious???

Come on. No it is not very much possible as you state.

It is and I repeat, impossible!

[Daniel Shawul]

I do not know what you are talking about but I was always under the impression that this was the april fools prank. Do you really think I belived it when I post it as a Luke Skywalker and sucking you Vas hater fools in ?

Clearly you are deluded to not see that Rybka is the one used not a dumbed down version which does alpha-beta only that is required for a proof.
It is a probabilitic proof that was claimed to have been done to 99.99999% accuracy. You can bring down chess to any level you want (say that of checkers) with prunings. No one said it is a proof like the checkers case so it indeed lame to say that was what is meant.

[Daniel Shawul]

See what chessbase have to say about it since i posted a complaint.

It is rybka AND a probablitistic proof that was used in the original description.

Not a dumbed down version that does alpha-beta AND a proof (that is not probabilistic).

Can you understand that ?

[Terry McCracken]

See what chessbase have to say about it since i posted a complaint.

It is rybka AND a probablitistic proof that was used in the original description.

Not a dumbed down version that does alpha-beta AND a proof (that is not probabilistic).

Can you understand that ?

I understand you can't read English well. You stated you were fooled the day before in brackets in plain English.

Read Here!

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

Obviously you admit you fell for it the previous day.

You still claim it's possible when it isn't!

You can complain all you want. I'm pointing out some obvious facts that seem to escape you.

You can't expect to get away with false claims directed at me did you?

[Terry McCracken]

I do not know what you are talking about but I was always under the impression that this was the april fools prank. Do you really think I belived it when I post it as a Luke Skywalker and sucking you Vas hater fools in ?

Clearly you are deluded to not see that Rybka is the one used not a dumbed down version which does alpha-beta only that is required for a proof.
It is a probabilitic proof that was claimed to have been done to 99.99999% accuracy. You can bring down chess to any level you want (say that of checkers) with prunings. No one said it is a proof like the checkers case so it indeed lame to say that was what is meant.

No you can't! I don't give a damn what some may think is or is not possible.