|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Apr-02-12
 | | hedgeh0g: I'm fairly confident this is a hoax. Let's think about this for a moment: Supposedly, 3.Be2 is the only move that draws for White, but unless the idea is to play a later Bf3 and Ne2 or play the knight to h3 (vulnerable to ...d5 with the threat of ...Bxh3), the knight on b1 is probably heading for f3 anyway, which begs the question why it wasn't developed before the bishop as it gives Black less options. Secondly, I am skeptical about the amount of processing power required to perform these mammoth calculations. Analysing <every> line in the KGA to a definitive conclusion? Granted, the hardware they describe in the article is impressive, but I find it hard to believe that this technology was unavailable/not utilised until now. If these revelations really are true, then I'm not really sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I'm fascinated by the ability to conclusively determine the validity of an opening for either side. On the other hand, some of the mystery has been taken out of chess and that's a shame. |
 |
Apr-02-12
 | | Landman: It reads like an April Fool joke. Interview was March 27, posted Apr 2. |
|
Apr-02-12
 | | Marmot PFL: Most openings are draws, if both sides play correctly. |
|
Apr-02-12
 | | Interbond: <Landman> that's not correct- Here is a quote from Chessbase: <Interview with Vasik RajlichOn 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.> This is clearly a joke,a subtle joke. King's Gambit solved and we only see an analyze of the first 4 moves? 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Be2 d5 4.edx5 So much work for so little analyze , well I don't believe it. |
|
Apr-02-12
| | Landman: <Interbond> Ah, yes, there's Chessbase's trickery. "April 1" was never mentioned. Good one! |
|
Apr-02-12
 | | SteinitzLives: The Kings Gambit busted? Maybe for a strongly supplemented computer with weeks to study it, but not for the rest of the world (computer or human) in classical or blitz chess tournament conditions. Just ask Naka when he beat Adams, Polgar when she beat Tope, or Short when he beat Kasparov with it, if they think it's busted for white. April fools joke? It better be, or Rybka looks real silly. |
|
| Apr-03-12 | | SamAtoms1980: LMAO at me: I was running over here, ready to proclaim that the King's Gambit had FALLEN. Thankfully, this was only a prank... |
|
Apr-03-12
 | | cro777: Natalia Pogonina (on twitter): "They claim that only 3.Be2 draws for White. Not sure if this is a serious article or not." BTW, Pogonina will play in the men's tournament for the Chess Club Rakita at the forthcoming Russian Team Championship (9-16 April). |
|
Apr-03-12
| | hedgeh0g: The lack of analysis is a very good point which I forgot to mention in my earlier post. If this article really <is> true, I think ChessBase could have done a better job of discussing this fairly serious development and we can all be forgiven for assuming it was a prank. |
|
| Apr-03-12 | | Blunderdome: <Short when he beat Kasparov with it> Do you mean the thematic game where Kasparov was forced to play the Kieseritzky line, or the blitz game they played last year? Neither really counts in their head-to-head record IMO. |
|
Apr-03-12
 | | acirce: Of course it's a joke. No question. |
|
Apr-03-12
 | | Shams: <acirce> Probably you're right, but chessbase hardly stretched believability with this one. It wouldn't surprise me if today's silly 4/1 (or 4/2) joke was reality in a few years. |
|
Apr-03-12
| | acirce: <chessbase hardly stretched believability with this one.> Oh, I think they did. Nope, it won't become reality any time soon. And the story makes no sense. Even if we accept Rajlich's supposed argument for being sure that all the +>5.12 lines win for white, even though that too is invalid, how can he be sure a line is drawn without analysing it all the way to tablebase territory? |
|
Apr-03-12
 | | jahhaj: It's a joke. The give away to a computer scientist is the claim that a 'non-deterministic Turing machine program' was used. Non-deterministic Turing machines are incredibly powerful computers, but the catch is they are purely theoretical, they cannot be built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-de... |
|
Apr-03-12
| | acirce: Thank you, <jahhaj>. Had no idea what that was. Of course, it was obvious enough even without that clincher. |
|
Apr-03-12
 | | Check It Out: I'm quite disappointed that the chess base article is a joke. I was well on my way to finally drawing a kings gambit... |
|
| Apr-03-12 | | eyalbd: April Fool's hoax :-)
See: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... |
|
Apr-04-12
| | acirce: Rajlich: <So, we're still probably a good 25 or so orders of magnitude away from being able to solve something like the King's Gambit. If processing power doubles every 18 months for the next century, we'll have the resources to do this around the year 2120, plus or minus a few decades.> Friedel: <Actually Vas is being overly optimistic, and we are probably overly pessimistic when we say: it will not be possible in the course of this universe.> |
|
| Apr-04-12 | | Rook e2: Didn't Fischer say he busted the Kings Gambit? Or did he also spoke those words on April 1st? |
|
| Apr-04-12 | | AVRO38: There was never any doubt that this was a hoax. I've always said that white stands better after 2.f4, in fact 2.f4 is probably white's strongest answer to 1..e5. |
|
Apr-04-12
 | | keypusher: <AVRO38: There was never any doubt that this was a hoax. I've always said that white stands better after 2.f4, in fact 2.f4 is probably white's strongest answer to 1...e5> And yet 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 are <clear draws>? Where did White's advantage go? Were you just going to keep posting new idiocies until someone responded? Mission accomplished. |
|
| Apr-04-12 | | AVRO38: <keypusher:And yet 3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 are <clear draws>? Where did White's advantage go?> I don't expect a moron like you to understand that not all advantages are winning advantages. Learn how to play before you make stupid comments like that. Anyone that needs a good laugh check out this patzer's games. Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say about a game you don't even know how to play? Scott Thomson
What a loser!!! |
|
Apr-04-12
| | keypusher: <AVRO38>
<Learn how to play before you make stupid comments like that.> Learn how to think before you make any comments at all. |
|
| Apr-04-12 | | frogbert: btw, i asked you a question on your player page last month, keypusher! |
|
Apr-04-12
| | keypusher: <frogbert: btw, i asked you a question on your player page last month, keypusher!> Sorry, I never go there. I have answered. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 18 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
