@5944
"After 1. Nf3 d5 2. Ng1, black is clearly better off than white"
Misrepresentation.
I said "After 1. Nf3 d5 2. Ng1, black is clearly better off than white in the opening position", because you had stated (incorrectly) that black was "one tempo up" in that position, like white is traditionally (and misleadingly) said to be in the opening position.
@5952
"After 1. Nf3 d5 2. Ng1, black is clearly better off than white in the opening position"
++ No, it is a draw just the same. A draw is no better than a draw.
White is a tempo up in the initial position.
If white checkmates black and black can checkmate in return, then it is no draw, but white wins.
@5950
"Therefore, we don't have to consider this position in the proof that chess is a draw."
++ You misrepresent my arguments.
1. Chess is a draw because:
a) Expert opinions of all World Champions
b) TCEC: needs 50 imposed slightly unbalanced openings to prevent all draws
c) ICCF: 136 draws, 6 white wins, 3 black wins
d) AlphaZero self play 97.7% draws, more with more time/move, even if stalemate = draw
e) Human top matches and tournaments: more draws with time and with higher ratings
f) White is up 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn, not enough to win. A pawn can queen, but a tempo cannot.
2. Thus weakly solving chess is hopping from the initial drawn position to other drawn positions until a drawn 7-men endgame table base position or a prior 3-fold repetition.
3. Therefore a position where one side is winning cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides and thus is not relevant in weakly solving chess.
1. Chess is a draw because: ...
You've missed out the bit where you say your calculations prove it's a draw. Is that conceding that your calculations don't actually work?
...
3. Therefore a position where one side is winning cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides and thus is not relevant in weakly solving chess.
Non sequitur.
Whatever we assume about the starting position, nothing you've posted so far about your proposed procedure for weakly solving chess indicates you will be considering only games with optimal play.
I'm still awaiting your post of the detailed calculations applied to the positions I posted. Once you've done that you don't need to keep posting this crap and everyone can get on with discussing the topic.
I always used to think that white is half a tempo up, in the opening position.
You were right. The arithmetic works that way. It doesn't with the usual claim that white is one tempo up (unless a "tempo" is half a ply, which is not what anyone thinks 
).
blah blah
1 (b) has also already been pointed out to be false (I can't recall by whom) both because:
@5963
About 1b TCEC: of the 50 imposed slightly unbalanced openings:
19 worked as intended: a win and a draw
22 lead to two draws: not unbalanced enough
9 lead to a win and a loss: too unbalanced
If they would not impose unbalanced openings, they would have all draws.
It isn't circular logic, because the logic is exactly identical to "how do you know you will hurt yourself by jumping off a 300 foot cliff onto sharp rocks below?"
This isn't logic....it's instinct. Even animals have it. They don't have to apply logic to sense danger, and if you're looking 300' down at sharp rocks, it's not logic that's scaring you....it's the self preservation instinct, in a different part of your brain.
On the other hand, even a non-logician like me could prove that chess is a draw if one of the givens is "Chess is a draw".
@5966
"prove that chess is a draw if one of the givens is "Chess is a draw". "
++ No. Chess is a draw follows from 6 pieces of evidence:
This is clearly some new meaning of the word "follows" with which I am not familiar. Is it a synonym of "transubstantiates"?
@5968
to follow = to result from
So, cause and effect? Computers drawing 63 out of 100 games causes the result to become a draw?
To be frank, your repetitive nonsense is getting boring.
@5960
Wait......so "follows" means "to result from"? So "chess is a draw" results from the opinions of world champions? What if there were no tournaments and no world champions? Would this mean chess was not a draw? What if chess were just invented and all you had to go on was the rules and none of your 6 points existed? Would this change your belief about chess being a draw?
@5971
"What if chess were just invented and all you had to go on was the rules and none of your 6 points existed?" ++ Then we would not know. In the previous century Rauzer believed 1 e4 wins and Berliner believed 1 d4 wins. Thanks to all the accumulated evidence from humans and computers we now know chess is a draw.
@tygxc "knows" chess is a draw.
Steinitz "knew" he could beat God even if he gave him pawn and move.
"Knowing" is a state of mind, NOT a state of fact.
@5963
About 1b TCEC: of the 50 imposed slightly unbalanced openings:
19 worked as intended: a win and a draw
22 lead to two draws: not unbalanced enough
9 lead to a win and a loss: too unbalanced
If they would not impose unbalanced openings, they would have all draws.
All draws, just like the second batch of games I posted, which start from a theoretically won position.
I suppose you would say the first batch, again from a theoretically won position is unbalanced because only eleven of the twelve were drawn.
Incidentally when are you going to post your calculations to determine the theoretical results of those positions and the number of errors in the games. If you do that we can all talk about sensible things.
@5975
"Knowing is a state of mind, NOT a state of fact."
++ Believing is a state of mind, knowing is objective.
Knowledge = understanding gained by actual experience; range of information;
clear perception of truth; something learned and kept in the mind.
Chess is a draw results inductively from millions of human and engine games and deductively from equal material and position in the initial position and from 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn being unable to queen.
This peer reviewed paper has knowledge in its title:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259
@5974
I think people underestimate the effect that hundreds of thousands of top class players have imposed, when they analyse the opening position to the best of their ability. I fully believe that their combined efforts is sufficient to fully confirm my belief that it's drawn by best play.
I accept that you "fully believe..." but I do not accept that all these top class players have any effect on the solvability of the game, nor that their opinions do anything other than convince other humans. When chess was invented and the rules were agreed on, at that moment it was either solvable or not. No human knew then whether it was solvable, and despite the strong opinions that exist, we are debating whether any human knows now.
@5948
"the games should be of interest to you"
++ None of these 4 positions is of interest in relation to weakly solving chess.
1st position counts 5 men only.
Weakly solving chess stops when the 7-men endgame table base is reached.
2nd position is a forced win for black,
cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides.
3rd position is a forced win for white,
cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides.
4th position is a forced win for white,
cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides.
I await your drawn KRPP vs. KRP.
All of the positions are of interest in relation to whether your calculations are correct.
(None of your posts are of interest in relation to weakly solving chess.)
You presumably base the fact that that some of the positions I've given cannot be reached from the starting position on the claim that the starting position is drawn. You claim your calculations prove that. Are you saying they prove it only if the starting position is drawn? If so I can give you a much simpler proof of the proposition "if the starting position is drawn then the starting position is drawn".
The fact is there is nothing in your calculations that assumes either the number of men in the starting position or the theoretical result. All the positions are relevant. You're just prevaricating.
Your evaluations above are also inaccurate, I've given you a drawn KRPP vs. KRP already in that set. Apply your calculations to find out which, why don't you?
I await your post of the detailed calculations.