@8283
"ignores the possibility of a starting position being infinitely up due to a forced checkmate"
++ The initial position is perfectly balanced: equal material, equal positions.
White only has the advantage of the initiative: one tempo up.
That advantage dilutes with each move. We know from gambits that 1 pawn is worth 3 tempi.
A pawn can queen, a tempo not. A tempo is not enough to win.
"" The initial position is perfectly balanced: equal material, equal positions"
position is an assumption, given the tempo.
either checkmate IS or ISNT considered an advantage.
"White only has the advantage of the initiative: one tempo up. That advantage dilutes with each move"
that cant be proven by you.
@8290
"black can also lose tempo by doing the exact same things"
++ Yes, black can lose tempi too, but then black cannot have a consistent win.
Say 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 Ng1 Ng8 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8 is a draw by repetition.
Black cannot repeat the exact same things if black is supposed to win.
I said before: if 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 is a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 is a white win.
Sure black can avoid the best moves, but then there can be no consistent win.
whatever move white makes, black COULD follow this pattern: do the same move but replace a 1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5, and vice versa. after blacks move things are symmetrical, after whites move things arent. therefore in the case of a symmetrical position black win, it is impossible for white to reach that position with a tempo lost, at least without a check or piece capture.
however, your argument makes no such check or piece capture provision.
hence, your argument must be wrong.
there is an "error" in this argument but i honestly hope you dont fall for that fallacy.
@8293
"either checkmate IS or ISNT considered an advantage."
++ Of course checkmate is an advantage. There is no forced checkmate in the initial position.
"That advantage dilutes with each move" ++ Of course. In the initial position the tempo count is 0-0. Then after white's first move it becomes 1-0. After black's reply 1-1. After white's 2nd move 2-1, then 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4 etc. Thus with each move the tempo advantage diminishes.
"That advantage dilutes with each move" ++ Of course. In the initial position the tempo count is 0-0. Then after white's first move it becomes 1-0. After black's reply 1-1. After white's 2nd move 2-1, then 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4 etc. Thus with each move the tempo advantage diminishes.""
those are literally just numbers. that doesnt mean anything.
when you have mate in 5 it doesnt matter how much tempo you have. if white has mate in 80 tempo doesnt matter either.
"There is no forced checkmate in the initial position"
you cant prove that.
@8293
"either checkmate IS or ISNT considered an advantage."
++ Of course checkmate is an advantage. There is no forced checkmate in the initial position.
"That advantage dilutes with each move" ++ Of course. In the initial position the tempo count is 0-0. Then after white's first move it becomes 1-0. After black's reply 1-1. After white's 2nd move 2-1, then 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4 etc. Thus with each move the tempo advantage diminishes.
"Advantage" independent of the optimal result is an insubstantial and ambiguous notion for imperfect players that has very little relevance to this forum. Your mock reasoning is typical of you. The truth for imprecise players is that advantage indicates uncertainty. If the result was viewed as a certain draw by an imperfect player, why would they think they had an advantage?
The bigger the advantage to an imperfect player, the higher they view the probability the result will be a win, but the result remains uncertain until later.
@8299
"when you have mate in 5 it doesnt matter how much tempo you have"
++ But you need some advantage to get to a mate in 5.
If black does not play optimally, then white has a checkmate in 4:
1 e4 e5 2 Qh5 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6? 4 Qxf7#
That however requires an error 3...Nf6? on black's part.
If black defends adequately then white cannot checkmate black.
Beginner games can end in quick checkmates,
but grandmaster games usually go to endgames where queening a pawn is the way to win.
@8301
"Advantage independent of the optimal result is an insubstantial and ambiguous notion for imperfect players that has very little relevance to this forum"
++ Perfect players always draw.
However, white has more ways to draw than black as white is a tempo up.
"advantage indicates uncertainty" ++ There are more pitfalls for black than for white.
White can afford to lose 2 tempi. Black can only afford to lose 1 tempo.
" "when you have mate in 5 it doesnt matter how much tempo you have"
++ But you need some advantage to get to a mate in 5."
yeah, and whites position could have advantage. you cant prove it doesnt
you then try to argue off of strong but imperfect moves.
thats another mistake in logic.
whatever move white makes, black COULD follow this pattern: do the same move but replace a 1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5, and vice versa. after blacks move things are symmetrical, after whites move things arent. therefore in the case of a symmetrical position black win, it is impossible for white to reach that position with a tempo lost, at least without a check or piece capture.
however, your argument makes no such check or piece capture provision.
hence, your argument must be wrong.
@tygxc you seem to be forgetting about this.
@8305
"you cant prove it doesnt"
++ I have provided proof in @8270. Read that and try to understand it.
If you are a math student, then you should be able to understand that. It is only basic math.
tygxc you still havent answered my questions as to why none of your arguments or claims appear on any chess media.
" 1 tempo < 1 pawn. A pawn can queen, a tempo cannot. White cannot win.
Each move dilutes the 1 tempo, so if a forced win existed, then it must be short."
this isnt any sort of evidence
like jesus christ, how do you miss this?
tempo means absolutely nothing.
you have to prove it.
@8306
"in the case of a symmetrical position black win, it is impossible for white to reach that position with a tempo lost, at least without a check or piece capture."
++ This is clearly wrong. If 1 e4 e5 were a symmetrical position black win, then 1 e3 e5 2 e4 would be a symmetrical position white win.
If 1 Nf3 Nf6 were a symmetrical position black win, then 2 Ng1 Ng8 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Ng1 Ng8 is a draw and hence not a symmetrical position black win.
whatever move white makes, black COULD follow this pattern: do the same move but replace a 1 with 8, 2 with 7, 3 with 6, 4 with 5, and vice versa. after blacks move things are symmetrical, after whites move things arent. therefore in the case of a symmetrical position black win, it is impossible for white to reach that position with a tempo lost, at least without a check or piece capture.
however, your argument makes no such check or piece capture provision.
hence, your argument must be wrong.
@tygxc