Yes, that is what they are called.
Creationists also lie and make up unprovable claims.
It might not be a good reply, but this thread deserves nothing more. Let it dissolve into the internets graveyard, this is officially a bad thread.
It looks like just about anything wins.1...Qb8 is strong.1...Rg2+, as you mentioned, is strong.1...Qc7 also wins.Houdini and Stockfish both prefer 1...Qb8 over 1...Rg2+
You should get a better engine then.
Better than Houdini? Seriously now.
Rybka is far more objective. I have had both analyze complex positons, and Rybka is always more accurate.
How would you know? You're a 1300 player.
Okay, I object, some of us may probably lose to you at chess, but that is no indication of if we know what we're talking about when it comes to software. I am impartial, I just think that is no just defence for saying you are right.
The point isn't about software. It's about objectively judging complex chess positions. For that, chess ability obviously matters.
I don't use the rating argument for things not related to actually playing chess.
Which claim is unprovable?
So why are you using Houdini in this thread- http://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/white-to-play-and-gain-a-winning-advantage