Carlsen Supplies New Evidence That Chess Is A Draw With No Mistakes

Blah - No. I won't. You can fantasize all you want but the reality is that 1) The best chess players are on ICC and 2) Poker is just a better, more modern game at this point. 

Once again...who would want to put in years of effort and energy to become great at chess these days? For what? To spend hours battling it out only to shake hands and agree that the game is a draw? 

You don't need to play chess to agree to that. Just look at this thread. 

So you're saying everyone breaks even over time? 

I think what you're saying is that the average poker player can only hope to break about even over time. Let's be honest though: The average poker player is absolutely attrocious.

Not everyone has your staggering knowledge of chess.  Count yourself unlucky that you're far too advanced to enjoy what must seem to you such a simple game.

Very nice - Now go play with your toys little boy. 

I don't think chess is simple. I think it's extremely complex and a highly intellectual affair. The outcome of a match just doesn't matter at all. 

I'm 31 years old. There are incentives for me to get good at poker. If I spend 8 years getting up to 1800+ in chess - Who cares? I win nothing but the biggest waste of time award.

I showed up to one of my local chess clubs a few times over the past three weeks. I swear to you, I've seen paint dry in a more exciting fashion. As soon as the match ends "uh...ok. Want to play blitz now?". Nothing happens. It's a pointless activity for an adult.

In poker I know only one bet, all in pre flop:

And only one result, winning the whole pot:

Yeah, there's that.  Why can't I stop playing though?  I think of it like art (don't laugh).  I'll never be Rembrandt or make money, but that's not why I play.  I enjoy it and that's enough.

Good luck with poker.  I watched some WSOP on youtube and it seemed pretty interesting (as little as I know about it).

Look, that's how I've seen chess in the past: An art and a science. An easel to display intelligence and brilliance. The problem is that the game is played out and has lost most of that. When the world championship goes the way this one has (I've watched some on ICC) the glory days are clearly long gone. 

I do appreciate your kind words though. I just never gave poker as much of a chance as chess in the past and now that I did: I can't really go back to a game where there isn't money on the line to that extent. 

I love poker. I just don't look down on anyone doing something other than my favourite activity at that particular time.

Neither do I. I'm not looking down on you. I'm looking down on chess. 

Yeah chess sucks.  Poker's where it's at!

Oh, never mind...I suck at that game, too.

It depends what you mean by proven?  I think there is enough evidence to  prove to me that chess is more likely than not a draw.     Is that evidence enough for you or for someone else?  I think OJ simpsons' guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt at his criminal trial.  But the Jury disagreed.  The prosecution didn't prove it to them.   Arguing about whether it was "proven" or not doesn't really help.  IMO It's better to actually address the evidence.

 Here I think ponz is saying we have another opening which appears to be draw.  To him that is some evidence.  If he is correct that the spanish is basically another draw then I too think this is some evidence.  (I'm too much of a patzer to even coming close to reaching such an opinion without relying on other authorities.) It is certainly better for the case that this opening leads to a draw, than if this opening remained uncertain.

I am more interested in looking at longer computer chess games and centaur coorespondence chess.  If those games tend to be ending in draws more often I think that is evidence that chess is a draw.   If they tend to end if fewer and fewer draws then it seems chess is not a draw.  

The other problem though is more wins for white and black then its very unclear.   It can't be a forced win for white and a forced win for black.  

Well, they were saying it was played out and too drawish in Capablanca's time too.  I guess Carlsen's style isn't what some people enjoy.  I like the endgame strategic style.

And I don't know... a lot of people complain about the current WCC.  I guess there are some short draws...

But having just looked over the games Botvinnik - Tal 1960, those games weren't THAT much more exciting.  The wins were not spectacular sacrifices (except game 6) and there were also short draws in the middle (due to fatigue) and at the end end (Botvinnik was going to lose).  And spectators also complained in that time too. 

And that match was 24 games long.  The current WCC of 12 games seems like a worthy addition to the list of WCC matches.

with the perfect moves   white lose  for  the zugzwang , u can see the carlsen stats, and also my stats ,  in candidates tourmanent, magnus lost his games against ivanchuk and svidler with white, and against Radjabov he had a lost position too.

Wild Bill Hickock wouldn't stand a chance against these modern poker players.

...You're clueless. There are people I know personally who are still making six figures a year playing online poker. Yup - In the U.S. 

I don't understand why if I'm turning out to love the game and am already making some money at it I have no incentive to get good. You're not even making sense.

Poker isn't chess. Depending on my intelligence, intuition, math skills, and work ethic I can get better than someone who's been playing ten years in a very short period of time. 

Sure, some of the absolute super whales that were playing in 2005 are gone but they'll definitely be back when the US stops with the mindless "ban" on online poker sites where they used to play. 

As said - Most of these whales think online poker is illegal in the US today. Between you and I? Look around a bit if you really like poker: There are several different networks up and running with traffic increasing each and every day. There's already state sponsored online poker in a handful of states and you know it's only a matter of time before the big sites like Pokerstars start accepting US players again. When they do - The whales will come swimming back with dreams of getting rich off of the game. 

That's a lot of the appeal in it for me so far: I'm learning the game when it's hard to start up a bankroll. I'm enjoying it tremendously. 

Once the whales come back? It's going to be a feeding frenzy for a lot of us and you know it. 

I don't think you know what prove means.

niceforkinmove.   Regarding your question about Centaur Chess: At the highest levels there are about 90% draws.  With very few wins for Black at all.   So, again, an indication that chess is a draw with best play.

Also, in Centaur Chess they have more or less determined that Black can hold a draw with the Petroff Defense  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nf6  So that with the Ruy Lopez being a draw and Petroff being a draw--this kind of kills 1. e4  for the very top players of chess.

This is reality, It can be good or bad, depending on many factors.

For those poker players especially in the USA who still try and play on line.

Beware of Locke Poker.  If you send them money you will never get it back. If you win some [ like I did ] and ask for the money--you will not get your money. It is a fraud.  I repeat, Do not send them money.