King's Gambit Solved by Rybka

Golbat

Check out this ChessBase article (published on the day after April Fools' Day): http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047

Apparently after 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4, the only move that doesn't lose by force is 3. Be2, which draws.

Thoughts?

pfren

Bullshit. Vasik should be high on something evil when he posted this crap.

Arctor

First I was like

 

but then...

keju

"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." Smile

chessmaster102

It seems outlandish to say ...Nf6 refutes the 3.Bc4 line  cause after e5 black has to waste a time getting his knight to safety and I highly doubt the opening is solved since a universal fact is engines aren't as good at positonal understanding as humans are.

Golbat
[COMMENT DELETED]
pfren
chessmaster102 wrote:

It seems outlandish to say ...Nf6 refutes the 3.Bc4 line  cause after e5 black has to waste a time getting his knight to safety and I highly doubt the opening is solved since a universal fact is engines aren't as good at positonal understanding as humans are.

Huh? 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ef4 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.e5?! is known to be bad for white due to 4...d5 (although Black should be slightly better with other moves as well).

trysts

I don't understand how that opening can be solved? How can it ever be verified?

Arctor
FirebrandX wrote:

It's April Fools. Chessbase does a joke like this every April Fools.

But it's April 2nd...

Arctor
FirebrandX wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

It's April Fools. Chessbase does a joke like this every April Fools.

But it's April 2nd...

Surely you can't be that naive. Read the article and the variation board diagram. Of course it's a joke!

But it's April 2nd...

Kallatroh
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

It's April Fools. Chessbase does a joke like this every April Fools.

But it's April 2nd...

Surely you can't be that naive. Read the article and the variation board diagram. Of course it's a joke!

But it's April 2nd...

The joke is it was posted on the first. April fools boy.

philidor_position
Kallatroh wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

It's April Fools. Chessbase does a joke like this every April Fools.

But it's April 2nd...

Surely you can't be that naive. Read the article and the variation board diagram. Of course it's a joke!

But it's April 2nd...

The joke is it was posted on the first. April fools boy.

Actually, no it was not, so it's not exactly within the boundaries of the Official International April's Fool Day Regulations. The article was published in 2nd April, but mentions that the interview took place the day after 31 March.

Here's the same discussion: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/im-rajlich-claims-kings-gambit-is-solved-by-rybka-cluster

Kallatroh
philidor_position wrote:
Kallatroh wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

It's April Fools. Chessbase does a joke like this every April Fools.

But it's April 2nd...

Surely you can't be that naive. Read the article and the variation board diagram. Of course it's a joke!

But it's April 2nd...

The joke is it was posted on the first. April fools boy.

Actually, no it was not, so it's not exactly within the boundaries of the Official International April's Fool Day Regulations. The article was published in 2nd April, but mentions that the interview took place the day after 31 March.

Here's the same discussion: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/im-rajlich-claims-kings-gambit-is-solved-by-rybka-cluster

How do you know?

ChessisGood

Funny to note how different the two threads are! One is full of people 100% positive it's an April Fools joke while the other thread believes it.

Kallatroh

So I was right. Pago pago time.

waffllemaster

Pago pago?

Arctor
FirebrandX wrote:

I knew it was a joke the moment I read the article. It amazes me at how gullible people like arctor can be to actually fall for a story like that. It was so ridiculous as to have me laughing, especially at the variation board they posted. Come on, people...

But it's April 2nd. You tit

Estragon
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

I knew it was a joke the moment I read the article. It amazes me at how gullible people like arctor can be to actually fall for a story like that. It was so ridiculous as to have me laughing, especially at the variation board they posted. Come on, people...

But it's April 2nd. You tit

Get the clues, dude!  He moved on March 31, interview the next day, planned months in advance.

You've been punked.

Arctor
Estragon wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

I knew it was a joke the moment I read the article. It amazes me at how gullible people like arctor can be to actually fall for a story like that. It was so ridiculous as to have me laughing, especially at the variation board they posted. Come on, people...

But it's April 2nd. You tit

Get the clues, dude!  He moved on March 31, interview the next day, planned months in advance.

You've been punked.

You must be as daft as that other tit. Show me where I said I believed the article was true? Can you do that? No, because all I did was suggest that posting an April Fool's on April 2nd is a stupid thing to do.

Arctor
FirebrandX wrote:
Arctor wrote:
Estragon wrote:
Arctor wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

I knew it was a joke the moment I read the article. It amazes me at how gullible people like arctor can be to actually fall for a story like that. It was so ridiculous as to have me laughing, especially at the variation board they posted. Come on, people...

But it's April 2nd. You tit

Get the clues, dude!  He moved on March 31, interview the next day, planned months in advance.

You've been punked.

You must be as daft as that other tit. Show me where I said I believed the article was true? Can you do that? No, because all I did was suggest that posting an April Fool's on April 2nd is a stupid thing to do.

Nice try, sucker, but your argument was implicit in believing it was a true article because it was posted on the 2nd. Your argument was not about it being a 'stupid joke'. To try and claim otherwise at this point not only makes you a sucker, but a liar too.

Suck on that tit...

Argument? You're clueless Undecided