Rybka Solves the King's Gambit Chess Opening

New submitter smarq2 writes "Chessbase reports that chess programmer IM Vasik Rajlich has solved the King's Gambit chess opening with technical means. 3000 processor cores, running for over four months, exhaustively analyzed all lines that follow after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 and came to some extraordinary conclusions." Update: 04/02 22:11 GMT by U L : Skuto points out that this is the same person who was found guilty of plagiarizing GNU Chess and Crafty.

Re:fake

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right... that can't possible be that guy's wife. ;-)

One question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I still move the horsie?

Re:Rybka was made by plagiarizing a GPL program.

[Anonymous Coward]

...the author plagiarized...chessbase keeps selling this stolen engine.... Slashdot ought to be ashamed to give publicity to cheats and thieves.

Oh, but didn't you know "you can't steal information"?

Re:A probabilistic algorithm

[brian_tanner]

The difference is that solve in this context is not a general English word but rather a specific and well defined term. I'm pretty sure the technical meaning of "solving" a game or position within a game requires a proof. The meaning of proof is somewhat stronger than overwhelming evidence. We are pretty sure P!=NP, but we don't have a proof. You cannot publish a paper or write a thesis that says "I'm pretty sure P!=NP".

Note: I'm not saying this work is uninteresting, just that those pointing out that solve is being used incorrectly are justified.

Re:The extraordinary conclusions? Only one move!

[marcosdumay]

For matematicians, yes it is.

Re:A probabilistic algorithm

[tincho_uy]

Why, sure you can: http://web.archive.org/web/20080211140314/http://cs-people.bu.edu/charlton/probpt.pdf [archive.org] :P

Re:The extraordinary conclusions? Only one move!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about chess, so "matematicians" is correct here.

Re:I'm not convinced by some of their statements.

[jd]

Only half of your personalities need to be.

Re:Rybka was made by plagiarizing a GPL program.

[kamapuaa]

If you read Slashdot, you know that stealing is OK, because
1) It costs more than is reasonable
2) You disagree with their license or copy protection scheme
3) The MPAA/RIAA are a bunch of jerks
4) You promise you will support the artist directly by some kind of donation or going to their show or referring your friends
5) It's a try before you buy situation, and you'll pay later if you like the program
6) Stealing software doesn't deprive others of the product