I wanted to thank everyone in this forum.
Thanks everyone! For proving chess players are the dumbest people ever, despite thinking that chess makes them smart.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2743
Ziryab escribió:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Morphys-Revenge wrote:
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or you could accept that Grandmasters are reasonably decent players who generally pursue the most promising lines, and who only lose when they take the risks necessary to pose novel problems for their opponents. When they want to draw, it is extremely difficult to prevent.
What happens when a grandmaster wants to draw against something 600 points better than they are? If by extremely difficult you mean pretty easy, then yes.
That's why I think using current grandmasters and computers as some sort of reference for this question is pointless. Perfectly played chess could be a draw, but nobody will ever know for a very, very long time.
Nothing. It doesn’t happen. There is no one 600 Elo higher than the weakest grandmaster.
*Go and grabs his Stockfish*
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Ziryab escribió:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
...
What happens when a grandmaster wants to draw against something 600 points better than they are?
...
Nothing. It doesn’t happen. There is no one 600 Elo higher than the weakest grandmaster.
*Go and grabs his Stockfish*
Thank you. I like how he selectively says "no one" instead of "nothing" and then appeals to an arbitrary ranking score.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2745
JimDiesel22 wrote:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Ziryab escribió:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
...
What happens when a grandmaster wants to draw against something 600 points better than they are?
...
Nothing. It doesn’t happen. There is no one 600 Elo higher than the weakest grandmaster.
*Go and grabs his Stockfish*
Thank you. I like how he selectively says "no one" instead of "nothing" and then appeals to an arbitrary ranking score.
“He” in this case did not appeal to an arbitrary score. He responded to it.
Your posts have dropped the level of discourse here.
No, because the first person was using a hypothetical difference in skill level. You were choosing to avoid the heart of the question and respond literally.
Ziryab wrote:
Your posts have dropped the level of discourse here.
Please find someone else who has put a proof in here.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2748
JimDiesel22 wrote:
No, because the first person was using a hypothetical difference in skill level. You were choosing to avoid the heart of the question and respond literally.
Actually, she was responding to what I said about grandmasters. Hence the “no one”.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2749
JimDiesel22 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Your posts have dropped the level of discourse here.
Please find someone else who has put a proof in here.
You read the 142 pages for yourself. I’m not doing your research for you.
Your degree I see is from Dunning Krueger U. I’ve never found their “proofs” worth my attention.
@Ziryab grandmaster = something?
It's just irrelevant. The point she was bringing up was that if you appeal to grandmasters, what happens when it's clear they don't make the best moves.
Also, why are you here? Your answer is "the grandmasters know best."
You're not interested in thinking any deeper.
Ziryab wrote:
JimDiesel22 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Your posts have dropped the level of discourse here.
Please find someone else who has put a proof in here.
You read the 142 pages for yourself. I’m not doing your research for you.
Your degree I see is from Dunning Krueger U. I’ve never found their “proofs” worth my attention.
Then disprove it.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2753
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Is chess so complex that neither a forced win or a forced draw will ever be discovered?
Yes and no. It does not exist. That’s pretty clear after 500 years of human analysis.
The hard proof of exhausting every possibility through brute force calculation, however, is likely not happening while you and I still breathe.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2754
JimDiesel22 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
JimDiesel22 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Your posts have dropped the level of discourse here.
Please find someone else who has put a proof in here.
You read the 142 pages for yourself. I’m not doing your research for you.
Your degree I see is from Dunning Krueger U. I’ve never found their “proofs” worth my attention.
Then disprove it.
Disprove what? You’ve offered nothing of substance.
I am curious, though, what was the name you used on your previous account?
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2755
ponz111 wrote:
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
I would suggest that out of billions of chess games that one cannot find even one game which was won or lost without one of the players making a mistake. If anyone thinks they can find such a game please post it here.
It has not been posted because it does not exist.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2756
Ziryab escribió:
ponz111 wrote:
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
I would suggest that out of billions of chess games that one cannot find even one game which was won or lost without one of the players making a mistake. If anyone thinks they can find such a game please post it here.
It has not been posted because it does not exist.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2757
Prometheus_Fuschs escribió:
Ziryab escribió:
ponz111 wrote:
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
I would suggest that out of billions of chess games that one cannot find even one game which was won or lost without one of the players making a mistake. If anyone thinks they can find such a game please post it here.
It has not been posted because it does not exist.
Prove it.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2758
Optimissed wrote:
Now let's assume there's a forced win for black.>>
Can you not see that is logically impossible?
Of course it's not logically impossible. It would merely mean that the opening position constitutes zugzwang.
Now you and I know from practical experience that it's vanishingly unlikely that that could be the case, but it's not a logical impossibility. There's no a priori reason the opening position couldn't be zugzwang.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2759
GWTR wrote:
bradct wrote:
Yes, with best play from both sides, a draw is the logical result. Chess would be a very poor game if there was a way to force a win without the opponent having done something to get into a losing position.
Your reasoning necessitates that tic-tac-toe is NOT ":a very poor game."
No it doesn't! "If A then B" (or, as it was worded here, "B, if A") does not imply "If not-A then not-B."
Consider: "A game is bad if it results in me getting marmelade all over my ceiling" does not necessitate that checkers (a game whose faults doest not include a tendency to produce marmelade-smeared ceilings) is good.
I'm not one who believes all arguments should be made through formal logic, but it's not cool to use pseudo-formal logic without knowing what you're doing, in order to try to sneak through arguments that are just plain wrong.
(I'm going to regret posting in this thread, aren't I?)
Now let's assume there's a forced win for black.>>
Can you not see that is logically impossible?
A) No, I can't.
B) Doesn't matter it's irrelevant, that's just what a proof by contradiction is