True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides - Chess Forums - Page 110

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2181

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111: “The fact that some games have been misanalyzed does not mean that other games have not been played with no errors”

No, it doesn’t de facto mean that. But you are the one making the claim that games have been played with no errors. The onus is on you to demonstrate that.

ponz111: “a perfect game is one where neither side made an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. I could give you examples of this.”

Nobody on this planet has any possible way of knowing if this has ever happened.

Just because you do not know that perfect games have been played does not mean that nobody on this planet has any possible way of knowing if this has ever happened?

The overwhelming evidence is that this has happened and has happened thousands of times--even if you do not know this and even if you cannot comprehend [see] the evidence.

And i have already demonstrated two games which were played with no errors [perfect games]

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2182

ponz111 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111: “There have been many draws where neither side made an identifiable error”

And how about errors that are NOT identifiable by current players and current engines? How many of those have been played and how do you know?

I have already given two games i have played which were perfect games.

It does not matter if a game is identifiable by current players and current engines as perfect for it to be perfect. A perfect game is a perfect game even if nobody in the whole wide world knows it is a perfect game!

I do not know how many perfect games have been played? I have played several. I am only one chess player out of millions of chess players. Am sure many others have played perfect games --actually it is easy to play a perfect game as i have shown.

A very conservative guess is that there have been thousands of perfect games played. [games without error by either side]

No, you gave games that you claimed are perfect. How do you know they are perfect?

In comes “because they have no mistakes.” How do you know they have no mistakes?

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2183

ponz111 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111: “The fact that some games have been misanalyzed does not mean that other games have not been played with no errors”

No, it doesn’t de facto mean that. But you are the one making the claim that games have been played with no errors. The onus is on you to demonstrate that.

ponz111: “a perfect game is one where neither side made an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. I could give you examples of this.”

Nobody on this planet has any possible way of knowing if this has ever happened.

Just because you do not know that perfect games have been played does not mean that nobody on this planet has any possible way of knowing if this has ever happened?

The overwhelming evidence is that this has happened and has happened thousands of times--even if you do not know this and even if you cannot comprehend [see] the evidence.

And i have already demonstrated two games which were played with no errors [perfect games]

Great. And what possible way does anyone have of knowing?

“The overwhelming evidence is that this has happened and has happened thousands of times”

Yes, the evidence is so overwhelming that you have provided absolutely zero. Posting a game and claiming it was perfectly played, without substantiating your claim, is in fact substantiating nothing.

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2184

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Ask any GM and he will say that some perfect games [meaning games without error on either side] have been played. Remember there have been billions of games played...

Ask me [someone who has played at the GM level ]

A GM might claim games have been played with no identifiable mistakes, but I doubt any GM would claim to know whether or not a literally perfect game was ever played.

Also using GM’s as an appeal to authority doesn’t really work here. All of us know all of the rules of chess and how it is played. A GM having a better understanding of established openings and better pattern recognition does not mean they have a better conceptual understanding of how the game is played and of mathematical probabilities involved. this statement is absolutely bonkers! GMs know much more than you give them credit for. They DO have a much better conceptual understanding of how the game is played than you do [or than other non GMs do]. Also GMs have a much better idea of mathematical probabilities than you do [or than other non Gms do].

LosingAndLearning81

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2185

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

OK, let me break out the crayons.

- A GM will identify mistakes that a 1600 player won’t find.

- A strong engine will identify mistakes that a GM won’t find.

- A stronger engine will identify mistakes that a weaker engine (than itself) won’t find.

- A hypothetical Super-Super engine of the future that has solved chess will identify ALL mistakes than anyone or any engine ever makes.

Since that last example doesn’t exist, how can anyone possibly know if a game was ever played where this Super-Duper computer would not find any mistakes?

Pure reason. Simple logic.

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2186

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2187

And by the way, any one of the players of these so called “perfect games“ would have gotten pimp slapped if one of the top engines was sitting across from them. That kind of takes away from the “perfect game“ claim.

LosingAndLearning81

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2188

"You do not understand what is a perfect game. A perfect game is NOT a game which is played a few centipawns better than another game a perfect game is one where neither side made an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. "

- ponz111

Now you're "moving the goalposts". Learn the difference between "perfect" and "sufficient".

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2189

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

I don’t think they would agree with you on this and it’s really weak to keep trying to use them as a crutch.

LosingAndLearning81

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2190

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

The latest in a long line of logical fallacies: argumentum ad verecundiam (appealing to authority).

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2191

LosingAndLearning81 wrote: ponz in blue

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

OK, let me break out the crayons.

- A GM will identify mistakes that a 1600 player won’t find. usually

- A strong engine will identify mistakes that a GM won’t find. sometimes

- A stronger engine will identify mistakes that a weaker engine (than itself) won’t find. sometimes

- A hypothetical Super-Super engine of the future that has solved chess will identify ALL mistakes than anyone or any engine ever makes. this will never happen but i will give you the hypothetical

Since that last example doesn’t exist, how can anyone possibly know if a game was ever played where this Super-Duper computer would not find any mistakes? You are entirely missing one of my points. It does not require that any chess engine or any person to recognize a perfect game has been played for such a game to be played.

It does not require that the game of chess be solved before a perfect game can be played.

If the game of chess is ever solved it and it looks over tens of millions of games--it will recognize at least thousands of games which have been played with no errors by either side.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2192

ponz111: “It does not require that the game of chess be solved before a perfect game can be played”

BZZZZT! Strawman argument alert!

I didn’t say that it did. I said it requires the game of chess to be solved to KNOW if a perfect game has ever been played.

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2193

LosingAndLearning81 wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

The latest in a long line of logical fallacies: argumentum ad verecundiam (appealing to authority).

NO You do not understand the logical fallacy of appealing to authority!

It is a logical fallacy that a claim is true WITHOUT ANY OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Just by looking at your games will give the supporting evidence.

Sorry but GMs know a lot more about chess than you do.

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2194

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

And by the way, any one of the players of these so called “perfect games“ would have gotten pimp slapped if one of the top engines was sitting across from them. That kind of takes away from the “perfect game“ claim.

I have figured out the correct moves in chess positions that the best chess engines could not figure out.

Also, one does not have to be the best player in the world to know that perfect games have been played.

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2195

LosingAndLearning81 wrote:

"You do not understand what is a perfect game. A perfect game is NOT a game which is played a few centipawns better than another game a perfect game is one where neither side made an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. "

- ponz111

Now you're "moving the goalposts". Learn the difference between "perfect" and "sufficient".

You are trying to move the goal posts a perfect game is a game without error by either side. The number of centipawns makes no difference in playing a perfect game.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2196

ponz111 wrote:

LosingAndLearning81 wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

The latest in a long line of logical fallacies: argumentum ad verecundiam (appealing to authority).

NO You do not understand the logical fallacy of appealing to authority!

It is a logical fallacy that a claim is true WITHOUT ANY OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Just by looking at your games will give the supporting evidence.

Sorry but GMs know a lot more about chess than you do.

You have yet to provide an actual citation from a GM, he just keep repeating over and over that the GM’s agree with you. Furthermore, Magnus Carlson himself doesn’t have any more knowledge than any of us about the rules of chess and how it’s played. A stronger memory, by far. Better pattern recognition? To an enormous degree. Knowing many more lines of openings? Tons more.

But the rules of chess and how it’s played? No, he doesn’t.

All of this is moot because you haven’t provided a single citation from a GM claiming to know whether a perfect game has ever been played.

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2197

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

I don’t think they would agree with you on this and it’s really weak to keep trying to use them as a crutch.

Yes, they would agree with me on this. And i am not just using GMs as a crutch--it is just one piece of a whole lot of evidence--there is much other evidence.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2198

ponz111 wrote:

LosingAndLearning81 wrote:

"You do not understand what is a perfect game. A perfect game is NOT a game which is played a few centipawns better than another game a perfect game is one where neither side made an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. "

- ponz111

Now you're "moving the goalposts". Learn the difference between "perfect" and "sufficient".

You are trying to move the goal posts a perfect game is a game without error by either side. The number of centipawns makes no difference in playing a perfect game.

“a perfect game is a game without error by either side.”

Great, without Chess being solved how do you go about knowing if this hypothetical game has ever been played?

I really lost count how many times I’ve asked you this question without getting an answer.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2199

ponz111 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

You simply do not understand how much more GMs know about chess than you do.

I don’t think they would agree with you on this and it’s really weak to keep trying to use them as a crutch.

Yes, they would agree with me on this. And i am not just using GMs as a crutch--it is just one piece of a whole lot of evidence--there is much other evidence.

Well, since there are currently no GM’s in here to speak for themselves, I’m afraid you’re going to have to pull up your big boy pants and make your own case.

Without chess being solved, how can you possibly know if a game was played with no mistakes?

ponz111

Mar 13, 2018

0

#2200

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111: “It does not require that the game of chess be solved before a perfect game can be played”

BZZZZT! Strawman argument alert!

I didn’t say that it did. I said it requires the game of chess to be solved to KNOW if a perfect game has ever been played.

i do not know if you said that or not as i am replying to more than one person but someone said that.

And I totally disagree that it requires the game of chess to be solved to KNOW if a perfect game has ever been played [and i have given some of my evidence on this]