Amazing article! Thanks for posting this link.
[Emphasis added]

Unfortunately, this was apparently an April Fool's joke.

It's reasonable to construct a search tree of around 10^18 positions using modern technology. The chess alpha-beta tree is thought to have at least 10^45 positions. The alpha-beta tree for the King's Gambit will be at most 10x to 100x smaller than that. 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.

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. The Rybka author added the following caveat:

You must remember that the tree for any specific 32-man position can be much smaller than we expect – if one side is immediately lost or if there is an immediate forced draw. Could the King's Gambit have a massively reduced tree? If the King's Gambit is winning for black, then this is theoretically possible. It is possible that after 2.f4 White is simply crushed instantly, no matter what he does. I very much doubt that this is the case. Everything in my chess experience tells me that any Black win would be long and tortuous. If the King's Gambit is a draw, though, then there are really no prospects for a massively reduced tree. In other words, it is (slightly) more preposterous to claim that 3.Be2 has been worked out to a draw than to claim that 3.Nf3 has been worked out to a loss.

They translates 'fuseki' to 'gambit'.

The title is just breakthrough to shodan, fuseki at a glance.

Thanks oren! Is it a problem book?

Looking at the documented history of go (some nice artikels are in GoGoD's offspin "The Go Companion") the style of play changed rather dramatically when the rules of the game changed (for example: starting stones on the hoshis in even games like in China until the 1930s, starting stones on the "flower points" like in Korea until 1920s, kirichin = "group tax" like in old China). I think that suggests that the very good players of a specific period tend to adopt to circumstances and not just play in a certain way because that's what they had learned.

So my guess is that - under current Chinese / Japanese rules! - playing more or less "corner, sides, center" is at least than the optimal play when only ONE of the players plays that way. What I mean is, that maybe it's a kind of "forcing strategy". If one does is, the other has to go with it, at least for a bit.