@drmboss :
That doesn't mean that closed positions are drawish because they're closed, but that some engines don't evaluate closed positions that well.
Simply put, the concept of "an effective fortress" is alien to some software, as if the engine has more material, mobility, or space, and doesn't see any real threats from the rival, assumes there will be a way to convert the "advantage".
6 years later ponz111 typing?
If one achieves a certain amount of chess strength--he/she knows chess is a draw. As players or machines become more and more stronger--they tend more and more to draw against each other.
Yes, my personal experience does matter. But what matters more than that is the ton of evidence. And there is new evidence that is very important but it seems clear that a few here do not want to look at the evidence.
And yes there have been many perfect games played already but many players are not strong enough to realize this. Again I suggest that if you are strong enough player--LOOK AT THE RECENT EVIDENCE
I think there is some empirical evidence that chess is a draw upon best moves for both sides, but this is not a mathematical proof which would need to show that black can force a draw regardless of what white does and also that white can force a draw regardless of what black does.
Even statistically speaking, while I agree that an impressive number of games have been drawn, compare this to Shannon's number, a lower bound on the number of possible chess games, which is 10^120 games. The number of games played by humans and engines is so minuscule compared to this, it is harder to judge whether or not this constitutes a representative sample of all possible chess games.
It is true that strong players tend to draw more - I think this is largely because they want more control of the risk in their games. If you play something chaotic, chances of mistakes are higher for both sides, whereas if you play something safer, but you understand the ideas, you can obtain a small but more stable advantage.
I'm not sure how we can know if a game is perfect or not - how can we judge with 100% certainty whether a given move is a mistake?
If one achieves a certain amount of chess strength--he/she knows chess is a draw. As players or machines become more and more stronger--they tend more and more to draw against each other.
Yes, my personal experience does matter. But what matters more than that is the ton of evidence. And there is new evidence that is very important but it seems clear that a few here do not want to look at the evidence.
And yes there have been many perfect games played already but many players are not strong enough to realize this. Again I suggest that if you are strong enough player--LOOK AT THE RECENT EVIDENCE
I agree that higher rated machines and people draw more. But correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also true that as ratings go up, the percentage of white wins goes up too?
P:atriot It is not true that as ratings go up, the percentage of White wins goes up too. [This assumes that the players are equally rated]
In correspondence chess as the ratings go up--the percentage of White wins goes DOWN. Correspondence chess [where it is a combination of a human and chess engine and research] you have the highest quality games where mistakes are rare at the highest levels.
Are you stupid or just trying to ignore my point?
ponz111 Then why do you draw more often then alpha zero, a machine that clearly evaluates positions better than you?
Jim Diesel Your question was a poor question as you seem to think I draw a lot. Actually I have won more than 50 games in a row. My lifetime record vs masters and grand masters is mostly wins.
P:atriot It is not true that as ratings go up, the percentage of White wins goes up too. [This assumes that the players are equally rated]
In correspondence chess as the ratings go up--the percentage of White wins goes DOWN. Correspondence chess [where it is a combination of a human and chess engine and research] you have the highest quality games where mistakes are rare at the highest levels.
Fine if you aren't "good enough" to draw as often as the best at Correspondence Chess, as you say, why then, does alpha zero draw less often than them? Maybe it's because humans playing Correspondence Chess are DOGSHIT AND NOBODY CARES THAT YOU PLAY CORRESPONDENCE CHESS YOU'RE A HUMAN WHO WOULD GET DESTROYED BY ALPHA ZERO AS BLACK WITH BISHOP ODDS.
Listen, figuring out if chess is a draw or not has nothing to do with anyone's chess ability. Chess is a simple, simple game with a large branching factor. Appealing to authority like GMs (lol) or yourself (lolololololololol) is a logical fallacy for anything.
You don't understand how easy it would be to find positions you would incorrectly evaluate. It's not because you are bad at the game (I'm sure you're great, you're just stupid), computers unaided by tablebases would get them wrong, too.
JimDiesel Again you are making stupid assumptions which are not true. I have not played correspondence chess for many years.
You also say I am not good enough to draw. What a stupid statement-I have won more than 50 games in a row--it takes more skill to win than to draw.
The recent evidence that chess is a draw has nothing to do with appealing to authority. If maybe you had looked at the evidence and understood the evidence--you would know this.
And yes, the more people know about chess by far it is more likely they will understand chess is a draw.
And. no, I would not get destroyed by Alpha Zero with those odds.
Also chess is not a simple game.
Appealing to authority [which is only a small fraction of my evidence] is not necessarily a logical fallacy If the authority is competent then it is not a logical fallacy. For example Trump does not follow the advice of experts in the field--but they have turned out to be right and Trump has turned out to be wrong. Trump thinks he is an authority on many things but he is not a competent authority and so appealing to his authority would be a logical fallacy,
Sure there are a very few positions that I or the best computers might not evaluate correctly--so what?
Okay, so much wrong with everything you said, but I know if I address it all you might understand half of it, so I'll address one slowly.
You also say I am not good enough to draw. What a stupid statement-I have won more than 50 games in a row--it takes more skill to win than to draw.
Do you honestly believe this is what I said? I am genuinely questioning if you speak English well enough to have this conversation.
Jim "Fine if you are not good enough to draw as often as the best at Correspondence Chess, as you say,"
[of course I never said that]
Jim "Fine if you are not good enough to draw as often as the best at Correspondence Chess, as you say,"
[of course I never said that]
Exactly. You claimed that as people get better at chess, they draw more often. And you said you don't draw as often as them. Thus, you aren't good enough to get to a level where they draw more often, according to you.
@JimDiesel22 pls stop arguing. Finding fault in other people's speech shouldn't be something you should do. I think we should stop insulting others and work on improving ourselves.
@JimDiesel22 pls stop arguing. Finding fault in other people's speech shouldn't be something you should do. I think we should stop insulting others and work on improving ourselves.
Good point. Hey everyone, I change my position. Chess is definitively a draw because all the grandmasters say so. Also, ponz111 never misrepresented my arguments. From now on, I'm never going to argue with anyone and just improve myself.
Jim your logic is totally flawed when you make a statement like this: "Exactly, you claimed that as people get better in chess they draw more often."This is a misquote, You are using a logical fallacy known as "strawman" where you argue against something I never said. That statement referred to Correspondence Chess which I have not played in years. It was clear in the statement that it referred to correspondence chess.
True.
I see now we've expanded to correspondence chess that uses computers. So your evidence that chess when solved is likely to be a draw is:
A - correspondence chess aided by machines leans toward a draw as skill increases
B - "Trust me I'm really good, you'd understand if you were as good as me"
Does human bias play no roll in A? It logically stands that if humans bias toward a draw, that if you interweave human and computer decisions, then the rate of draws would increase relative to computer vs computer. And humans do bias toward a draw. The top grandmasters draw more often than stockfish vs alpha zero despite being way worse.
JimDiesel Human bias plays little or no role in correspondence chess. And certainly humans who play correspondence chess have no bias towards a draw--they want to win. Example. when I played in the final round of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship--=I was playing for a win every game and out of 14 games played--I won 13.
You seem to have little understanding of chess and correspondence chess if you think humans have a bias towards draws in either game. Humans want to win. The fact that there are more and more draws in correspondence chess is because the game of chess IS A DRAW and humans who wish to win cannot overcome the natural course of a very well played game.l
Regarding B I am not asking you to trust me. I am just stating the fact that as humans get stronger and stronger in chess--they understand chess is a draw. Also, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding about chess and that may be the reason you have apparently not even tried to look at the recent evidence?
Also you made the statement: The top grandmasters draw more often than stockfish vs alpha zero despite being way worse." This statement of yours is not true, Just the opposite is true. Again this shows you have a basic misunderstanding of chess.
6 years later ponz111 typing?
Either that or written in a will for an heir to push a contention. Now it's 69-70 years of playing chess, I am guessing.
Being open minded to a possibility is not the same as saying it must be so.