What engines can calculate about the first opening move, until the end of the game or what super gm's can do, doesn't really apply to the rest of us, so there isn't much point in worrying about it. Good luck memorizing lines that deeply.
Carlsen Supplies New Evidence That Chess Is A Draw With No Mistakes
Sort:
Nov 22, 2013
0
#103
nameno1had wrote:
What engines can calculate about the first opening move, until the end of the game or what super gm's can do, doesn't really apply to the rest of us, so there isn't much point in worrying about it. Good like memorizing lines that deeply.
no worries! just interesting discussion initiated by ponz111.
For those who are interested. Centaur Chess is coming up with very many draws at the highest levels. About 90% draws. Also they have found another defense to 1.e4 it is the Petroff Defense 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6
Top Centaur players say that you just cannot win if another centaur player knows and plays the Petroff Defense.
So another nail is driven in the coffin of playing 1. e4 for a win.
Another indication [does not prove 100%] that chess is a draw when played with no errors.
[I know this makes some players upset who say you cannot prove chess is a draw and makes other players upset who say chess IS a draw-why dwell on it]
Nov 22, 2013
0
#105
ponz111wrote:
[I know this makes some players upset who say you cannot prove chess is a draw and makes other players upset who say chess IS a draw-why dwell on it]
haha, yes.
Some guy is arguing that chess is pointless because most people can't win money or get famous playing it. Wow, I guess a lot of things are "pointless" then. Perhaps the most truly valuable and enjoyable things, in fact......
Now for MY opinion:
Poker is a horrible game. Personally I can't think of much more of a waste of time than being serious about poker.
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Some guy is arguing that chess is pointless because most people can't win money or get famous playing it. Wow, I guess a lot of things are "pointless" then. Perhaps the most truly valuable and enjoyable things, in fact......
Now for MY opinion:
Poker is a horrible game. Personally I can't think of much more of a waste of time than being serious about poker.
trivial perhaps...but if something adds to one's life, it is never pointless...I'll make the arguement that his assertions are far less necessary than chess to the betterment of life...
Everything in one's life is pointless.
bigpoison wrote:
Everything in one's life is pointless.
My bishops have points...
While it is obvious that some openings are a forced loss, some lines with best play however, can certainly be draws with best play. According to Chessmaster, the Parham is a draw.... never tried it on another engine though...
The Parham is a draw as White gives up his slight advantage in the opening and this leads to a rather equal game.
Somebodysson wrote:
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
seeing just how played out and dead chess is
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.
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.
haha, I stumbled upon a really funny thread. Some of this stuff is reallly funny. It's nice to know, however, that ponz111, wafflemaster, scottrf, and some others are here on chess.com making this 'pointless activity' so much more enjoyable and educational for me.
As for our dear poker player, who I am just having the first pleasure of meeting,...chess is a pointless activity, but the point of writing that over and over on this thread is...what's that??!!
I think scottrf may be right. You're 31, very young from my point of view. You have a lifetime ahead of you. Stay away from poker, which I know nothing about, and chess, which I know a tiny bit about, and try something that you may be successful at, like standup comedy.
haha, I had some good before-bed laughs tonight. Thank you ponz and others for your brains, your logic, and your good sense of humour in the face of this...very funny young man!!
Way to wall of text crit us without actually saying anything.
Next time you find something so humorous - Actually say why you find it humorous.
Nov 27, 2013
0
#113
I can't believe that anyone is still bothering to entertain this topic. Unless of course those people are suffering from a mental deficiency.
I wonder if Blackburne thought his gambit must inherently be a draw too, with best play by both sides ?
TheArtofWar82 wrote:
Otherwise, you just look like a big, dumb, Bolivian.
There speaks a truly cultured cosmopolitan! I´m so glad there are people like him on the forum, they make me laugh. I´m not going to explain why, either.
How good is the evidence that Carlsen supplies? Is it better than the evidence supplied by centaur games? Is it useful in some other way?
ponz111 wrote:
For those who are interested. Centaur Chess is coming up with very many draws at the highest levels. About 90% draws. Also they have found another defense to 1.e4 it is the Petroff Defense 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6
Top Centaur players say that you just cannot win if another centaur player knows and plays the Petroff Defense.
So another nail is driven in the coffin of playing 1. e4 for a win.
Another indication [does not prove 100%] that chess is a draw when played with no errors.
[I know this makes some players upset who say you cannot prove chess is a draw and makes other players upset who say chess IS a draw-why dwell on it]
When I was brand new to chess I would play 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nf6 3.Nxe5,d6 4.Nxf7 as white in a desperate attempt to avoid symmetry and I reasoned that 2 pawns for a knight is down the exchange but not that bad. Though yeah my "invention" (played it before touching a book) loses by force =(
lol the art of war sucks so much he gave up on chess =D
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
For those who are interested. Centaur Chess is coming up with very many draws at the highest levels. About 90% draws. Also they have found another defense to 1.e4 it is the Petroff Defense 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6
Top Centaur players say that you just cannot win if another centaur player knows and plays the Petroff Defense.
So another nail is driven in the coffin of playing 1. e4 for a win.
Another indication [does not prove 100%] that chess is a draw when played with no errors.
[I know this makes some players upset who say you cannot prove chess is a draw and makes other players upset who say chess IS a draw-why dwell on it]
When I was brand new to chess I would play 1.e4,e5 2.Nf3,Nf6 3.Nxe5,d6 4.Nxf7 as white in a desperate attempt to avoid symmetry and I reasoned that 2 pawns for a knight is down the exchange but not that bad. Though yeah my "invention" (played it before touching a book) loses by force =(
Symmetrical positions often favor white, there are no last licks in chess. Things like checks can't be ignored, or pins that if aren't addressed now, will become too late to deal with later and simply also because, black won't get a last turn if he loses.
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.
some people may, perhaps, have different reasons for learning chess. reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with money. as hard as this may be to imagine.
you don't understand chess at all. you apparently have no grasp on what's actually going on when two people above 2200 play a real chess game. I'm sure a chess game between two unenthused below 2200s could be a very dull and dry affair indeed.
oh you watched the world championship match on ICC? I'm sure you saw everything that was going on in those games too.
if anything's a "children's game" it's poker. but quite true, if all you are after is money, then poker is the logical choice as everyone knows there's no money in chess. unless you're top 50 in the world.
people claiming chess is dead and there's no creativity left in it are full of it. these are just people who only ever think about money and have become disenchanted with chess because they've realized just how much work it actually entails with there being little to no fiscal reward.
the only people who have any right legitimately complaining about how much of a role opening preparation and memorization plays in chess today are those who are what? above 2600 or something? people who are below 2200 saying these kinds of things is ridiculous. comical. have no idea what they are talking about.
the only things really threatening chess today are certain technologies. nothing else.
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.
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.
I don't think you know what prove means.
I think the same of you.