TalkChess.com

Albert Silver wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote:April Fool's A bit late.

Depends on the place.

You mean like Pago Pago?

rbarreira wrote:

LudiBuda wrote: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.

I believe that it was very late on April 1st depending on which country you're looking at.

Terry McCracken wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Don wrote:

gerold wrote:

Daniel Shawul wrote: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 have to say that I think this is utter nonsense, my years of experience in computer chess and other games tells me that no matter what the "score" reported by the program (other than Mate) there are holes in the knowledge and search that can make this go wrong.

The number seems to be a poetic license picked in a conversation with a journalist, rather than a number you write in a paper. Like a teen ager saying I am super-hyper-duper-sure, so I am 99.9999.... etc.

The bottom line is, there is a 100% probabilities to reach a position +5.12 in rybka scale for black after 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf5 d6.

Or, this system returns

Code: Select all

3... d6 :-) >+5.12 

(I hope some people pick my joke)

Miguel

Yes, I see it...and why are people giving this article any credence??? I mean really...

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

Anyway, +5.12 I am pretty sure was an old Rybka bug when the output got stuck in that number. I do not have rybka but I remember the complaints.

Miguel
EDIT: A further article should refute this one because Be2 is loses based on an underpromotion

rbarreira wrote:

G.B. Harms wrote:

rbarreira wrote:

LudiBuda wrote: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

michiguel wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Don wrote:

gerold wrote:

Daniel Shawul wrote: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 have to say that I think this is utter nonsense, my years of experience in computer chess and other games tells me that no matter what the "score" reported by the program (other than Mate) there are holes in the knowledge and search that can make this go wrong.

The number seems to be a poetic license picked in a conversation with a journalist, rather than a number you write in a paper. Like a teen ager saying I am super-hyper-duper-sure, so I am 99.9999.... etc.

The bottom line is, there is a 100% probabilities to reach a position +5.12 in rybka scale for black after 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf5 d6.

Or, this system returns

Code: Select all

3... d6 :-) >+5.12 

(I hope some people pick my joke)

Miguel

Yes, I see it...and why are people giving this article any credence??? I mean really...

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

Anyway, +5.12 I am pretty sure was an old Rybka bug when the output got stuck in that number. I do not have rybka but I remember the complaints.

Miguel

I think Larry told me that this was not a bug but was done on purpose but I don't remember the details. But it does lend credence to the idea that this is a joke.

It seems like a pretty silly joke if it is, try to make fools out of your customers by saying stuff that makes you look stupid!

But I'm inclined to believe it's a joke now - that Be2 is the only line that holds a draw seems rather silly.


Don

Don wrote:...It seems like a pretty silly joke if it is, try to make fools out of your customers by saying stuff that makes you look stupid!

But I'm inclined to believe it's a joke now - that Be2 is the only line that holds a draw seems rather silly.


Don

An April's Fool joke is only a good one if it sucks a lot of people in.
I'd imagine that most of us have probably been sucked in by one at some stage.

Don wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote: Yes, I see it...and why are people giving this article any credence??? I mean really...

You have to consider the source. I have to assume that you did not read the ICGA refutation piece they did. Read that first, then tell me if you think this sounds wacky for them.

But I have to admit that this seems a bit much to believe that Vas would be this stupid. When I read that I felt embarrassed for Vas so I hope this really is a joke.

You assumed wrongly, albeit I only skimmed it and it was pathetic afaic.
That should have been a joke, while this most certainly is. First, with the current technology it's impossible, especially in the short period of time this was supposedly done. Did anyone check what's going on with IBM? Watson is now Doctor Watson, (knowledge wise) not solving chess openings but giving advice in medicine. You will not find it in The Journal Nature or Science. You will find nothing at all if you google it, outside of Chessbase or a forum reciting it from Chessbase.

The story is false, a hoax. Even if Vas is doing something like this on his own it's false. No need for anyone to be embarrassed unless they fell for the article or even felt it might be true in part, meaning results. Not Vas or Chessbase; but maybe a gullible reader?

michiguel wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Don wrote:

gerold wrote:

Daniel Shawul wrote: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 have to say that I think this is utter nonsense, my years of experience in computer chess and other games tells me that no matter what the "score" reported by the program (other than Mate) there are holes in the knowledge and search that can make this go wrong.

The number seems to be a poetic license picked in a conversation with a journalist, rather than a number you write in a paper. Like a teen ager saying I am super-hyper-duper-sure, so I am 99.9999.... etc.

The bottom line is, there is a 100% probabilities to reach a position +5.12 in rybka scale for black after 1.e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf5 d6.

Or, this system returns

Code: Select all

3... d6 :-) >+5.12 

(I hope some people pick my joke)

Miguel

Yes, I see it...and why are people giving this article any credence??? I mean really...

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

Anyway, +5.12 I am pretty sure was an old Rybka bug when the output got stuck in that number. I do not have rybka but I remember the complaints.

Miguel
EDIT: A further article should refute this one because Be2 is loses based on an underpromotion

I got it. But it would mean more for a fan.

rbarreira wrote:

LudiBuda wrote: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.

The game is dated April 1st.

Terry postmortem doesn't get you credits.
You were almost 4 hours late to reply