Draws are boring in chess to some and not boring at all to others.
Depends on the level of play for one thing.
Carlsen Supplies New Evidence That Chess Is A Draw With No Mistakes
Sort:
A fighting draw between GMs is rarely boring.
But agreeing to a "GM draw," after just 10 or 20 moves is deadly dull.
Nov 20, 2013
0
#44
Carlsen managed to win a Rook and Pawn engame with one pawn up against the defending World champion by setting up problems Anand couldn't solve.
How can people seriously come up with threads like this a few days later? The Header couldn't be more wrong. Carlsen didn't show that chess is drawn, Carlsen showed that with enough creativity you can create winning positions out of the dryest endgames that even Club players think they could defend.
Nov 20, 2013
0
#45
Carlsen's played consistently and not provided exploitable hooks "enough" for Anand to effectively pounce on .. at the same time, he's created tough problems for Anand to solve OTB and has gone after those mistakes in a compelling manner.
Nothing about this ever implied Carlsen played error-free. He didn't give too much to Anand but took plently from him instead.
This creates the favorable illusion that Carlsen is machine-like ... though he is not. Just that Anand's doing a sucky job proving he isn't :)
Of course Carlsen did not prove or show chess is drawn. It is just that his games provided more evidence. The rook and pawn end game that you mentioned was a theoretical draw. Anand made a mistake so he lost.
And also, Carlsen showed wonderful creativity to create that winning position but it still could not be won unless Anand made a mistake.
Not disparaging Carlsen at all, he is the greatest.
Nov 20, 2013
0
#47
But i don't get it, what's the point of "he made a mistake?" every game/sport on this planet is drawn if no one makes a mistake. If no one makes a mistake in soccer no one will shoot a goal and the game is drawn.
But mistakes don't appear out of thin air(well at least not at the higher level). You need to put pressure on your opponent, get a better position, and then at some point he'll crack. With perfect play every game is a draw, we don't need evidence for that as this is bascially a tautology.
If no one makes mistakes and someone loses you would have designed a terrible game.
Sure in chess the effort to convert an advantage into a win is quite huge, but a drawn result doesn't mean a game wasn't great, so i don't see the point.
It is not proven with certainty that chess is a draw.
It can be substantiated but not proven.
Statements like 'With perfect play every game is a draw, we don't need evidence for that' make no sense.
Attox I agree with everything you said. The point is there are a lot of players who do not believe chess is a draw and Carlsen with his very good play supplied more evidence of this. To you [and me] chess is a draw is like a basic tautology but you might be surpised to learn how many chess players do not think it is a basic tautology.
Chessman_47 wrote:
Carlsen makes as good as 99.9999999999 % computer moves. This moron hasn't got talent. Look at Fischers great games - no comps have been available at that time.
Non-sequitur.
Nov 20, 2013
0
#51
the berlin endgame is a draw, that is true. however, i think 5.qe2 is quite strong for white in the berlin. but those positions are complicated enough for computers and even more so for humans...
A few weeks ago I mentioned how I had been dabbling in poker. I basically insisted that I would never go here but after playing about 5,000 hands and now seeing just how played out and dead chess is - The world of chess has definitely lost me to the world of poker. Not that I'll be missed much, but the bottom line is that there really is no wondering why chess's popularity is so diminished here in the States at this point while poker reigns supreme.
The fact is that there doesn't seem to be very much creativity left to be had in chess. It's become a game of "play it safe and don't make a mistake" where you try not to lose instead of trying to win.
Computers can't solve poker - But they will, absolutely, solve chess in the near future.
Many chess players will only accept a mathematical proof for chess being a draw.
Since no such proof exists (at least not yet) these folks are of the opinion that no substantive evidence exists for chess being a draw.
Many hundreds of windy posts have been asserted along these lines, in a number of other threads in which @Ponz111 has advanced his "chess is a draw, without mistakes" proposition.
If and when these folks (described above) join this thread, we will be back to the forum races, so to speak.
You have been warned. 
P.S. (re: post above) -- Chess will most certainly NOT be solved in the near future. And maybe never, Brainiac.
MrBlunderful wrote:
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
A few weeks ago I mentioned how I had been dabbling in poker. I basically insisted that I would never go here but after playing about 5,000 hands and now seeing just how played out and dead chess is - The world of chess has definitely lost me to the world of poker. Not that I'll be missed much, but the bottom line is that there really is no wondering why chess's popularity is so diminished here in the States at this point while poker reigns supreme.
The fact is that there doesn't seem to be very much creativity left to be had in chess. It's become a game of "play it safe and don't make a mistake" where you try not to lose instead of trying to win.
Computers can't solve poker - But they will, absolutely, solve chess in the near future.
Reigns supreme?
Yep.
MrBlunderful wrote:
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
A few weeks ago I mentioned how I had been dabbling in poker. I basically insisted that I would never go here but after playing about 5,000 hands and now seeing just how played out and dead chess is - The world of chess has definitely lost me to the world of poker. Not that I'll be missed much, but the bottom line is that there really is no wondering why chess's popularity is so diminished here in the States at this point while poker reigns supreme.
The fact is that there doesn't seem to be very much creativity left to be had in chess. It's become a game of "play it safe and don't make a mistake" where you try not to lose instead of trying to win.
Computers can't solve poker - But they will, absolutely, solve chess in the near future.
Reigns supreme?
I play my share of poker, but the days when it reigned over anything dwindled and died about a decade ago.
No - The days when the average noobsauce like you played it because it was experiencing a boom ended about 10 years ago. Most of you think that online poker is "illegal" today even though that's totally not the case.
You can still find poker on cable every single day. When was the last time there was a chess match on US television?
As soon as the Black Friday madness ends and Pokerstars accepts US players again you'll all be back to shovel your money into the middle so legit players can take it away.
A few months ago it was 'you're all noobs playing on chess.com, all the real players play on ICC'.
Now you're still a horrible player (despite promising rapid improvement this year), so have moved to poker, and have started the 'you noobs only played it when it's popular'.
I'm hoping you're no better at poker than chess, I wont have to come across you online again. You wont afford the connection.
Scottrf wrote:
A few months ago it was 'you're all noobs playing on chess.com, all the real players play on ICC'.
Now you're still a horrible player (despite promising rapid improvement this year), so have moved to poker, and have started the 'you noobs only played it when it's popular'.
I'm hoping you're no better at poker than chess, I wont have to come across you online again. You wont afford the connection.
If I actually spent hours a day studying and playing chess (I haven't played in over two months) I would continue improving, naturally. As it is - Who would want to do that? You don't win money, you don't lose money, nobody really cares about the outcome of the match, and if you ever do reach the master class levels in chess, you're looking at a draw 85%+ of the time.
Chess has become a total waste of time. It's a children's game.
Nov 20, 2013
0
#58
Attox wrote:
But i don't get it, what's the point of "he made a mistake?" every game/sport on this planet is drawn if no one makes a mistake. If no one makes a mistake in soccer no one will shoot a goal and the game is drawn.
But mistakes don't appear out of thin air(well at least not at the higher level). You need to put pressure on your opponent, get a better position, and then at some point he'll crack. With perfect play every game is a draw, we don't need evidence for that as this is bascially a tautology.
If no one makes mistakes and someone loses you would have designed a terrible game.
Sure in chess the effort to convert an advantage into a win is quite huge, but a drawn result doesn't mean a game wasn't great, so i don't see the point.
Not quite true; connect 4 is a forced win, for example . . .
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
If I actually spent hours a day studying and playing chess (I haven't played in over two months) I would continue improving, naturally. As it is - Who would want to do that? You don't win money, you don't lose money, nobody really cares about the outcome of the match, and if you ever do reach the master class levels in chess, you're looking at a draw 85%+ of the time.
Chess has become a total waste of time. It's a children's game.
Such distain for anything which isn't your personal favourite activity at that point in time.
Few months down the line, you'll be speaking badly about poker.
Chess with best play is a draw.
Chess with the best play is boring.
Draws are boring.
Chess with best play is a draw.
Chess draws are boring.
=> Chess with best play is boring.