Luke skywalker has done it again.

[Mark Mason]

Wow this forum certainly is unique. Nowhere else could one April Fool's joke that was intended to bring humour/fun, result in 13 pages of bickering, squabbling and trading of insults. Unbelievable.

[Uri Blass]

One last time. Computers can't give you a probablistic win or draw in an entire opening like the King's Gambit. It's far too complex. It's far too deep.

A crude idea, maybe but no more.

Same for the Benko Gambit.

I also believe that computers of today with some reasonable evaluation function cannot prove +5.12 for king's gambit or benko's gambit but it is only an opinion and not a known fact.

I believe that you are not going to be able to prove it(similiar to another opinion that is that white does not lose in chess with perfect play).

Yes I do belive that too but they were after a probabilistic proof using Rybka not an exact proof.

I did not write about win proof but about +5.12 proof that is the meaning of what they call probabilistic proof.

I believe that no program with a reasonable evaluation function is going to be able to prove +5.12 for black in all lines after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3(assuming we have the hardware that is available today or something that is not more than 1000 times faster)

Edit:You can allow something that is more than 1000 times faster than the best computer that we have today and also 1000 times bigger in memory then what we have today and I believe that no combination of hardware or software is going to be able to see +5.12 for all lines of white at move 3 except one even if you give it 10 years.

[Daniel Shawul]

The second line also clearly states that it would require a huge amount of work more than course of universe. So why would anyone think that it was an exact proof this is implied is beyound me.

It was an 1st April joke and you've been fooled. Stop, nothing more. Live with that. There are worst things in life. There is no need to write 100 posts just to keep highlighting this to us. Even an 8 year old kid would have gave up and passed to something else.

Wishful thinker. Maybe you should ask Terry about that since he asked so many similar questions.

April fool joke: First they said it takes the course of the univeres to solve it AND they said the proof is 99.999999% only.

April fool answer: Then the answer oh it takes the course of the universe to solve it.

Did you the see the fallacy there? Why would rybka be even used?

As to your insults, you are just bitter I don't give to your BS with stockifish. Sorry it is not a real C++ eninge

[Daniel Shawul]

Well you can't help postmortem analysts to not jump in with their brilliant explanations after the game is over
Not to mention those who wait around for their favorite foo to put put a step wrong as examplified by Marco here.

[Daniel Shawul]

One last time. Computers can't give you a probablistic win or draw in an entire opening like the King's Gambit. It's far too complex. It's far too deep.

A crude idea, maybe but no more.

Same for the Benko Gambit.

I also believe that computers of today with some reasonable evaluation function cannot prove +5.12 for king's gambit or benko's gambit but it is only an opinion and not a known fact.

I believe that you are not going to be able to prove it(similiar to another opinion that is that white does not lose in chess with perfect play).

Yes I do belive that too but they were after a probabilistic proof using Rybka not an exact proof.

I did not write about win proof but about +5.12 proof that is the meaning of what they call probabilistic proof.

I believe that no program with a reasonable evaluation function is going to be able to prove +5.12 for black in all lines after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3(assuming we have the hardware that is available today or something that is not more than 1000 times faster)

Edit:You can allow something that is more than 1000 times faster than the best computer that we have today and also 1000 times bigger in memory then what we have today and I believe that no combination of hardware or software is going to be able to see +5.12 for all lines of white at move 3 except one even if you give it 10 years.

Yes you talked about Rybka and 5.12. But they clearly mentioned they used Rybka and not some engine that only uses only alpha-beta. They even said that it takes the course of the universe to find the faults of their algorithm. So the answer to the joke that it takes the course of the universe is a clear fallacy especially after they said the same thing in the description already and after saying Rybka is used. This is not a bullet-proof peer reviewed paper so faults can be found for sure.

[geots]

Someone said in rybka forum that he tried similar stuff but I haven't read his work.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... ?tid=24668

Anyone can say anything they like, but this guy is on another planet. Najdorf was quoted as saying that Bobby (Fischer) preferred to enter the chess heavens alone. And would. I suspect that he would say the exact same thing about Vas as pertains to computer chess.

There is no doubt history will show him as the greatest programmer who ever lived. I still cannot believe that 4.1, probably a 2.5 year old version, is still in the middle of all these recent new versions.

Can you imagine the publicity- and he is living his dream and can laugh all the way to the bank. Don't get me wrong- we have some of the best programmings mind anywhere- and the difference between him and the rest is vast. No one is even remotely close.

gts

So you are buying into this hoax as well? Vas as a programmer is a fraud like the article.

Terry,

You cannot deny that Vas is a good programmer. I don't like what happened any more than you or anyone else and I believe he took some shortcuts that saved him many years, but I don't think denying his ability make sense.

He brought a huge ELO increase to an already strong program. I think what he did was not ethical and it was wrong - but he clearly added a lot to Fruit. He did this primarily with really good engineering and not much imagination though (in my opinion) because he had to be shown the way, until then he was wandering around aimlessly.

George tends to greatly exaggerate - almost to the point of hero worship - but essentially I have to agree that Vas pushed ahead more than anyone else and by a large margin. I don't put him in the genius category but perhaps in the great engineer category. It takes logical thinking and good engineering ability to build a great program.

There are many programmers who seem to be able to work with something that already exists but lack something - I don't know if it's imagination or just laziness, but unless they are inspired by something really good they just flog around like a fish out of water. I think he is one of those.

I have seen this in the workplace many times - people that cannot get started on a project or idea but can run with something that is already developed. They cannot develop a vision but they don't lack any talent either.

You missed the whole point I was making. It is not hero worship. There are no exaggerations. It is simply this: Vas has an engine version, Rybka 4.1- that is over 2 years old. In most rating lists it is still in the Top 5.

You are a great programmer- but until you can show me a particular version- not an engine- but a particular version of yours that is in the Top 5- and over 2 years later that SAME VERSION is still in the top 5 with no changes made to it during the 2 years- I will consider you pretty much on the level with Vas. But until then- no way. You are good- but you cannot and I doubt ever will be able to- accomplish that. I don't believe there is another programmer alive that can. Do you honestly think that with the latest VERSIONS of Houdini, Critter, Komodo and Stockfish- one will still be in the Top 5 in 2 years. Not a chance in hell.

When you show me that- then the programmer who did it will reside on the same planet with Vas. And you cannot go back 15 to 20 years to show me one that did it. It would have been done then because of the lack of so many good engines at the same time. There was nowhere near the stiff competition then. Comparing apples to oranges.

It is simple- when another programmer accomplishes that- call me. Otherwise, you have nothing on the subject I am interested in.


Best,

george


PS: With one caveat- Houdart may be able to do it.

[Dan Honeycutt]

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!

Wow! I dropped out of the bickering when I discovered I was talking to a stone but I may have to get back in.

Best
Dan H.

[Mark Mason]

Wow this forum certainly is unique. Nowhere else could one April Fool's joke that was intended to bring humour/fun, result in 13 pages of bickering, squabbling and trading of insults. Unbelievable.

and still it continues....I rest my case.

[Daniel Shawul]

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!

Wow! I dropped out of the bickering when I discovered I was talking to a stone but I may have to get back in.

Best
Dan H.

You dropped out when I asked you questions and can't answer them. Now you call me a stone to get back in with an excuse. Roll on a.hole. Yes you desereve that.

[Daniel Shawul]

Wow this forum certainly is unique. Nowhere else could one April Fool's joke that was intended to bring humour/fun, result in 13 pages of bickering, squabbling and trading of insults. Unbelievable.

and still it continues....I rest my case.

See how people pop out of the blue to insult some one and yet no one tries to discusses technical aspects of this thread especially after being challenged. I believe that was entertaining and enlightening as well but it is just me.