Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
"proof" can have two meanings.
Prove it.
Again, Ponz' first statement was one of belief. He didn't state that it was proven beyond doubt. Shall we parse every little thing that you said and nitpick every little flaw you make?
You may have fun doing that to others, I don't.
TheGrobe you are just trolling now.
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
You don't really understand what "circular line of reasoning" is apparently.
He is asking for EVIDENCE that chess is not a draw. After hundreds of millions of games, SOME evidence should have turned up by now.
A lack of evidence after 100s of millions of games isn't final proof, but it's a strong suggestion that the truth lies in the other direction.
Again, Ponz' first statement was one of belief. He didn't state that it was proven beyond doubt. Shall we parse every little thing that you said and nitpick every little flaw you make?
You may have fun doing that to others, I don't.
I assume that's part of the fun for grobe, i.e. try to find a flaw in what he says. He seems to choose his words carefully.
Not that you don't have a point.
How would you know whether it was a mistake or not? A bit of a circular argument there.
A strong enough player, with the help of a strong chess engine would know. Not only that, he could point out the mistake.
A chess engine that's analysed anywhere near all 10^123 possible games? You got a link to one?
I'd be happy with 10^43 positions.
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
You don't really understand what "circular line of reasoning" is apparently.
He is asking for EVIDENCE that chess is not a draw. After hundreds of millions of games, SOME evidence should have turned up by now.
A lack of evidence after 100s of millions of games isn't final proof, but it's a strong suggestion that the truth lies in the other direction.
I don't understand why 100 million games is proof of anything. It's like saying mathematicians have tried to solve a problem for 100 years, so I can declare it's unsolvable. I mean, it's just meaningless. Humans aren't perfect, and chess is so complex, that no number of games means anything.
He may be asking for evidence, but how can you give evidence before chess is solved? You can give reasonable assumptions (I made a few clever ones myself a few pages back, why chess is a draw) but that's it.
But ok, if we choose to accept we don't like each other's phrasing, then one side can stop the topic. Grobe has said though that he doesn't want new members to read the phrasing ponz uses and get the wrong idea. Maybe that's why he was unwilling to stop for 100 pages.
Don't expect to see Grobe respond though, ponz apparently blocked him.
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
You don't really understand what "circular line of reasoning" is apparently.
He is asking for EVIDENCE that chess is not a draw. After hundreds of millions of games, SOME evidence should have turned up by now.
A lack of evidence after 100s of millions of games isn't final proof, but it's a strong suggestion that the truth lies in the other direction.
I don't understand why 100 million games is proof of anything. It's like saying mathematicians have tried to solve a problem for 100 years, so I can declare it's unsolvable. I mean, it's just meaningless. Humans aren't perfect, and chess is so complex, that no number of games means anything.
He may be asking for evidence, but how can you give evidence before chess is solved? You can give reasonable assumptions (I made a few clever ones myself a few pages back, why chess is a draw) but that's it.
But ok, if we choose to accept we don't like each other's phrasing, then one side can stop the topic. Grobe has said though that he doesn't want new members to read the phrasing ponz uses and get the wrong idea. Maybe that's why he was unwilling to stop for 100 pages.
Don't expect to see Grobe respond though, ponz apparently blocked him.
You're making the same mistake, conflating evidence with proof.
The 100s of millions of games isn't a random selection, but the very best efforts of the very best chess players (and many others) to play the perfect game. This is indeed evidence. It's not final proof, but it is evidence that chess is most likely a draw. All the thousands of hours of analysis by top GMs and engines have yet to produce a single line that gives White a decisive edge.
That's not a final proof, but it is evidence. So yes, evidence is available. It's not sufficient for some, but for every GM, it's sufficient for them to accept that chess is a draw with best play.
Sorry, I was less than precise. Instead of "every GM". I should have said "just about every modern GM".
Well, that's what Spock thought. There are too many variables so the question is irrelevant, no? Like the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. IMHO
@Smyslovfan
Ok, but it's such weak evidence... so weak I wouldn't want to call it that. Hard work? Professionals? Those words are subjective, they don't mean much. GMs are good compared to other humans, their hard work is to beat their opponents not play perfectly. And if you're playing peers then shouldn't we expect most games to end in a draw, and to contain errors?
If you want evidence lets talk about the drawing margin of most endgames and compare it to the imbalances in the opening (not in the Silman sense). Lets talk about things like forcing moves, dynamism in the position, zugzwang, and how they related to positions we know are drawn and won and then again compare to the starting position.
This is much more compelling than saying there have been an arbitrarily large number of games played to date, and each decisive one contained a mistake.
I've mentioned the drawing margins before too. That is also evidence.
Your previous statement would negate even the evidence that you now accept.
There is one minor problem with those other bits of evidence though:
GM Aronian has pointed out that there are some starting positions in Chess960 that are very close to decisive (wins for white). He calls such starting positions "ridiculous", but they suggest that what you claim to be "more compelling" evidence regarding the endgame may in fact not be as compelling to grandmasters.
To those asking the impossible, i.e. a won/lost game that didn't have a mistake, I'd like to ask them the same thing - for a drawn game that didn't have a mistake. Every game has mistakes, and will continue to until computers have mastered chess.
Remember also, that white's only advantage isn't tempo, it's influencing the other side's pawn structure and initial layout, which could be crucial.
There is one minor problem with those other bits of evidence though:
GM Aronian has pointed out that there are some starting positions in Chess960 that are very close to decisive (wins for white). He calls such starting positions "ridiculous", but they suggest that what you claim to be "more compelling" evidence regarding the endgame may in fact not be as compelling to grandmasters.
Well, again, then we compare it to the opening. I assume that in those 960 positions there are a lot of threats / forcing moves available.
In your previous post "negate event he evidence you now accept" I don't understand. Some endgames are solved as a win or draw, this is what I'm talking about.
To those asking the impossible, i.e. a won/lost game that didn't have a mistake, I'd like to ask them the same thing - for a drawn game that didn't have a mistake. Every game has mistakes, and will continue to until computers have mastered chess.
Remember also, that white's only advantage isn't tempo, it's influencing the other side's pawn structure and initial layout, which could be crucial.
Actually, there are many drawn games without any discernible mistakes. It won't take long to dig those up.
In your previous post "negate event he evidence you now accept" I don't understand. Some endgames are solved as a win or draw, this is what I'm talking about.
Please show me where exactly I wrote that. And remember, you are the one who provided the quotation marks.
To those asking the impossible, i.e. a won/lost game that didn't have a mistake, You are not being clear here. This is not what we are asking. We are not asking for a drawn game. We are asking if you can find one game out of 100 million games where one side won where there were no mistakes in the game. I'd like to ask them the same thing - for a drawn game that didn't have a mistake. Every game has mistakes, and will continue to until computers have mastered chess. This is not true. There have actually been millions of games played where neither side made a mistake. They were all drawn games. Just look at any very short super grandmaster game which ended up a draw and I challenge you to find a mistake in that game.
Remember also, that white's only advantage isn't tempo, it's influencing the other side's pawn structure and initial layout, which could be crucial. I know what White's advantages are and the total of White's advantages are only worth approximately 1/4 of a pawn and that is not enough to win.
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
It's the wrong question. No such game can be provided of course, until chess is solved.
Also his "billions" of games statement means nothing in terms of proof.