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.
Oh man. You got it backwards. Infact I made a separate post about it on that day (the futuristic Let's check feature that allows you to pry on other peoples studies). I thought that was it until someone replied seriously to me.
So I was pranked on that. There were two devious posts on the actual april fools day not pogo pogo's.
a) chess + billiards ( easy to get with a google that it was true)
b) Let's check crystal ball.
I thought the second one was a prank and many people thought that too.
Julien: Super Nanny, I have two kids totally out of control! They keep fighting and won't listen at all. Do you think you could handle them? Super Nanny: You bet I can!!! Bring them to me!
Daniel Shawul wrote: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.
Why do you think it is claimed as "probablistic proof" if they have to use dumbed down version i.e alpha-beta gives same score as min-max? That is only required for a proof as in checkers. Even the 5.12 termination is not required to show that it is possible with the current Rybka as it is.
Daniel Shawul wrote: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.
Why do you think it is claimed as "probablistic proof" if they have to use dumbed down version i.e alpha-beta gives same score as min-max? That is only required for a proof as in checkers. Even the 5.12 termination is not required to show that it is possible with the current Rybka as it is.
I don't think it is. I've already explained and I'm not going to explain again. Got it?
It's hard to believe you're a programmer. Then again...?!
Julien: Super Nanny, I have two kids totally out of control! They keep fighting and won't listen at all. Do you think you could handle them? Super Nanny: You bet I can!!! Bring them to me!
Daniel Shawul wrote: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.
Why do you think it is claimed as "probablistic proof" if they have to use dumbed down version i.e alpha-beta gives same score as min-max? That is only required for a proof as in checkers. Even the 5.12 termination is not required to show that it is possible with the current Rybka as it is.
I don't think it is. I've already explained and I'm not going to explain again. Got it?
It's hard to believe you're a programmer. Then again...?!
Well that is your problem then. They even admitted that there could be flaws , which has been discussed here many times already. I thought the whole point was the strange 99.999999% assurance so I was disapointed to see today in their explanation, that they said it was impossible based on an exact proof which was never the point. I think they worded the question wrong to Ken thompson and vas as well. Maybe something like:
Can chess be solved ? No ofcourse not easy.
But you can claim that you are 99.999999% lost if you are 2 pieces down ?
They even gave that example to demonstrate the feasibility of the experiment.
Julien: Super Nanny, I have two kids totally out of control! They keep fighting and won't listen at all. Do you think you could handle them? Super Nanny: You bet I can!!! Bring them to me!
Daniel Shawul wrote: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.
Why do you think it is claimed as "probablistic proof" if they have to use dumbed down version i.e alpha-beta gives same score as min-max? That is only required for a proof as in checkers. Even the 5.12 termination is not required to show that it is possible with the current Rybka as it is.
I don't think it is. I've already explained and I'm not going to explain again. Got it?
It's hard to believe you're a programmer. Then again...?!
Well that is your problem then. They even admitted that there could be flaws , which has been discussed here many times already. I thought the whole point was the strange 99.999999% assurance so I was disapointed to see today in their explanation, that they said it was impossible based on an exact proof which was never the point. I think they worded the question wrong to Ken thompson and vas as well. Maybe something like:
Can chess be solved ? No ofcourse not easy.
But you can claim that you are 99.999999% lost if you are 2 pieces down ?
They even gave that example to demonstrate the feasibility of the experiment.
You really are an impossible person. I claimed nothing at all other than the article is bogus and you can't solve any opening with current technology. Not even weakly solved. That's not my quote either.
Only Quantum Supercomputers if and when they exist have a chance and they don't exist!
Julien: Super Nanny, I have two kids totally out of control! They keep fighting and won't listen at all. Do you think you could handle them? Super Nanny: You bet I can!!! Bring them to me!
