First I was like
but then...
King's Gambit Solved by Rybka
Sort:
"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." 
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.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I don't understand how that opening can be solved? How can it ever be verified?
FirebrandX wrote:
It's April Fools. Chessbase does a joke like this every April Fools.
But it's April 2nd...
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...
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.
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
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?
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.
So I was right. Pago pago time.
Pago pago?
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 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.
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 
Why was the chess.com april fools also posted on april 2 >_> And why was this posted on april 2, too? Shouldn't it be april 1?
FirebrandX wrote:
GreenPumpkin31 wrote:
Why was the chess.com april fools also posted on april 2 >_> And why was this posted on april 2, too? Shouldn't it be april 1?
In chessbase's follow-up article, they explained they tried to use Pago Pago time, but the server insisted on using local time. This screwed up their clever ploy. However, as I tried to explain to the sucker above you, the article was CLEARLY a joke because of the content. He kept arguing: "But it was posted on the 2nd" as if to claim it can't be a joke because of that. He'd been told numerous times to just use common sense when reading the damned thing, but suckers can't handle that. That's why they are suckers.
No argument here, just a simple fact...the article was posted on April 2nd 
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?