TalkChess.com

Not an insult - just an observation.

Mark Mason wrote:Not an insult - just an observation.

You misunderstood, i didn't mean you made insults. I agree with you. The thread keeps going in the wrong direction because some want it to go that way. I belive with Rybka (not a dumbed down version) the explanation is simply wrong. The joke is still valid.

Daniel Shawul wrote:

Dan Honeycutt wrote:

JuLieN wrote:

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.

You asked questions? I didn't answer them? Heaven forbid!

Here's what you wrote to me:

Daniel Shawul wrote: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.

Then:

Daniel Shawul wrote:

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 ...

It appears you don't know what a question is. However, if you can construct a question, I'll be happy to answer it.

Best
Dan H.

The question was in (b) as to why you would think the discussion should be over there. You didn't even understood what I meant when I said he came back after hours... I was clearly referring to his "April 1st tag in the PGN". Terry was at work as he claimed. I accept that but by that time many things have been revealed in other forums so your attempt to referee was misplaced. You missed the context of the discussion which is why I described step by step from a to f. Bear in mind I always belived this to be the joke out of the three that I have been following. Do you still think we should have stopped at (b) and went home ? I was personally interested in finding out mistakes in their description so it doesn't make sense to do that. So did other people. However no one wants to discuss f.i as to why it is claimed Rybka is used but then later something that uses only alpha-beta is used. To get BF from 6 to 3(level of checkers), only few prunings are required. For example null move is very safe especially with the claim that they had developed a zugzwang detection. So for me it is still very feasible. I disagree with the explanation completely as they now claim they are after exact proofs. It really doesn't make sense to say that after telling in original description to say "it takes course of the universe to do that". Clearly the explanation shouldn't be "it takes course of the universe" when infact due to some oversights they made mentioning Rybka it is infact possible as I replied to Rein's post.
So you wanted questions answer those and we can get back to civil discussions.

Daniel Shawul wrote:The question was in (b) as to why you would think the discussion should be over there. You didn't even understood what I meant when I said he came back after hours... I was clearly referring to his "April 1st tag in the PGN". Terry was at work as he claimed. I accept that but by that time many things have been revealed in other forums so your attempt to referee was misplaced. You missed the context of the discussion which is why I described step by step from a to f.

So (b) is a question. Well, I'll be darn. Any more? You said questions - note that's plural - that I couldn't answer.

Daniel Shawul wrote:Bear in mind I always belived this to be the joke out of the three that I have been following.

Right. Your statements such as:

P.S: I was actually looking for April Fools announcement when I found that. This is definately real.

confirm that.

Daniel Shawul wrote:Do you still think we should have stopped at (b) and went home ?

Now that is a real question. A tough one that should certainly give me difficulties in answering. But, since I said I would answer if you were able to construct a question, I'll give it a go. You should stop if you want to stop and keep going if you want to keep going.

Daniel Shawul wrote:I was personally interested in finding out mistakes in their description so it doesn't make sense to do that. So did other people. However no one wants to discuss f.i as to why it is claimed Rybka is used but then later something that uses only alpha-beta is used. To get BF from 6 to 3(level of checkers), only few prunings are required. For example null move is very safe especially with the claim that they had developed a zugzwang detection. So for me it is still very feasible. I disagree with the explanation completely as they now claim they are after exact proofs. It really doesn't make sense to say that after telling in original description to say "it takes course of the universe to do that". Clearly the explanation shouldn't be "it takes course of the universe" when infact due to some oversights they made mentioning Rybka it is infact possible as I replied to Rein's post.
So you wanted questions answer those and we can get back to civil discussions.

Answer "those"? Oh, never mind. No point going in circles.

It has been entertaining but I'm afraid I have to go. Super Nanny showed up and we made a deal. In exchange for, well, we'll leave that unsaid. Anyway, I have to say goodbye. Last word is yours.

Best
Dan H.

Bye bye troll until next time you decide to call me a "stone" and try to get back in. My point was to suck in as many rybka haters as possible which was successful... Now run away.

Daniel Shawul wrote:Bye bye troll until next time you decide to call me a "stone" and try to get back in. My point was to suck in as many rybka haters as possible which was successful... Now run away.

Are you a child? There is a troll here and it isn't Dan Honeycutt.

Terry McCracken wrote:

Daniel Shawul wrote:Bye bye troll until next time you decide to call me a "stone" and try to get back in. My point was to suck in as many rybka haters as possible which was successful... Now run away.

Are you a child? There is a troll here and it isn't Dan Honeycutt.

Troll.

Daniel Shawul wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote:

Daniel Shawul wrote:Bye bye troll until next time you decide to call me a "stone" and try to get back in. My point was to suck in as many rybka haters as possible which was successful... Now run away.

Are you a child? There is a troll here and it isn't Dan Honeycutt.

Troll.

[MODERATION]
Everybody expressed their opinions. Time to move on.

Miguel