And eliminating 97% of games (ever position therein) still leaves over 10^40 possibilities for a winning line.
It also leaves ~10^42 possibilities for a drawing line.
Anyone who believes that chess is a forced win in the computer age is delusional. Modern computers have proven that chess is a draw. In the top levels of correspondence chess(where engines are allowed) there is a 97% draw rate.
If chess were a forced draw, why isn't the draw rate 99.99999% or even 100%? 97% sure leaves a lot of room for some other possibility.
Obviously because Modern engines and correspondence players aren't perfect.
Yes. Which means they aren't performing best play. Which means it's not proven. You said it was.
Do you know what a hyperbole is?
It's just hyperbole, not "a" hyperbole .
English isn't my native language.
And eliminating 97% of games (ever position therein) still leaves over 10^40 possibilities for a winning line.
It also leaves ~10^42 possibilities for a drawing line.
Yes, there are countless possibilities both ways. Which helps whose side of this argument? The side saying there's no forced draw. Thanks for playing.
Do you know what a hyperbole is?
It's just hyperbole, not "a" hyperbole .
English isn't my native language.
I'm just informing you, not attacking you.
And eliminating 97% of games (ever position therein) still leaves over 10^40 possibilities for a winning line.
It also leaves ~10^42 possibilities for a drawing line.
Yes, there are countless possibilities both ways. Which helps whose side of this argument? The side saying there's no forced draw. Thanks for playing.
There are 33 times more possibilities for a drawing line than for a winning line.
And eliminating 97% of games (ever position therein) still leaves over 10^40 possibilities for a winning line.
It also leaves ~10^42 possibilities for a drawing line.
Yes, there are countless possibilities both ways. Which helps whose side of this argument? The side saying there's no forced draw. Thanks for playing.
There are 33 times more possibilities for a drawing line than for a winning line.
...which is meaningless when you are talking about 10^40 possible games 
. Even if a draw were 33 *trillion* times more likely it would still leave over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways for there to be a forced winning line. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the games ever played in the history of the planet by humans and engines alike are like one speck of sand on a beach.
And eliminating 97% of games (ever position therein) still leaves over 10^40 possibilities for a winning line.
It also leaves ~10^42 possibilities for a drawing line.
Yes, there are countless possibilities both ways. Which helps whose side of this argument? The side saying there's no forced draw. Thanks for playing.
There are 33 times more possibilities for a drawing line than for a winning line.
...which is meaningless when you are talking about 10^40 possible games . Even if a draw were 33 *trillion* times more likely it would still leave over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways for there to be a forced winning line. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the games ever played in the history of the planet by humans and engines alike are like one speck of sand on a beach.
The proof of the earth being round is meaningless when you are talking about an infinite amount of possibilities 
. Even if a round earth were 33 *septillion* times more likely it would still leave an infinite amount of ways for there to be a flat earth. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the possibilities ever envisioned in the history of the planet by humans are like a speck of sand on an infinite beach.
The proof of the earth being round is meaningless when you are talking about an infinite amount of possibilities . Even if a round earth were 33 *septillion* times more likely it would still leave an infinite amount of ways for there to be a flat earth. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the possibilities ever envisioned in the history of the planet by humans are like a speck of sand on an infinite beach.
Nope. Sorry. That doesn't follow. Learn to posit your equivalences logically. Don't Tucker Carlson it.
The proof of the earth being round is meaningless when you are talking about an infinite amount of possibilities . Even if a round earth were 33 *septillion* times more likely it would still leave an infinite amount of ways for there to be a flat earth. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the possibilities ever envisioned in the history of the planet by humans are like a speck of sand on an infinite beach.
Nope. Sorry. That doesn't follow. Learn to posit your equivalences logically.
There is no difference, just like there is a 99.999999999999999999999999% chance that the earth is round, there is a 97% percent chance that chess is a draw.
The proof of the earth being round is meaningless when you are talking about an infinite amount of possibilities . Even if a round earth were 33 *septillion* times more likely it would still leave an infinite amount of ways for there to be a flat earth. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the possibilities ever envisioned in the history of the planet by humans are like a speck of sand on an infinite beach.
Nope. Sorry. That doesn't follow. Learn to posit your equivalences logically.
There is no difference, just like there is a 99.999999999999999999999999% chance that the earth is round, there is a 97% percent chance that chess is a draw.
This shows a distinct lack of understanding. The only way the earth is not round(-ish, since it's an oval actually due to spin) is if the Universe is a simulation, but then all human beings can do is work with the physical laws of the universe we can perceive...and in that universe, the earth is proven to be round (and by both mathematical and empirical evidence), and chess is not proven to be a forced draw (by anything).
There's no equivalence unless you are willfully embracing a higher level of ignorance to get there. Which has, admittedly, become a common tactic in the forums...so maybe I should not be surprised anymore .
The proof of the earth being round is meaningless when you are talking about an infinite amount of possibilities . Even if a round earth were 33 *septillion* times more likely it would still leave an infinite amount of ways for there to be a flat earth. Try to grasp the numbers here. All the possibilities ever envisioned in the history of the planet by humans are like a speck of sand on an infinite beach.
Nope. Sorry. That doesn't follow. Learn to posit your equivalences logically.
There is no difference, just like there is a 99.999999999999999999999999% chance that the earth is round, there is a 97% percent chance that chess is a draw.
This shows a distinct lack of understanding. The only way the earth is not round(-ish, since it's an oval actually due to spin) is if the Universe is a simulation, but then all human beings can do is work with the physical laws of the universe we can perceive...and in that universe, the earth is proven to be round, and chess is not proven to be a forced draw.
Wrong, it's possible that the world was created 1 nanosecond ago and the earth is actually flat and our memories never happened. I could come up with bullsh!t possibilities all day, all of which are unimagenly unlikely, but still possible.
Wrong, it's possible that the world was created 1 nanosecond ago and the earth is actually flat and our memories never happened. I could come up with bullsh!t possibilities all day, all of which are unimagenly unlikely, but still possible.
You're just being contrary for it's own sake. That would still fall under "all human beings can do is work with the physical laws of the universe we can perceive".
You still lose, Sherlock, because if your premise is correct, then nothing can be absolutely proven...including chess being a forced draw. You're not helping yourself here.
Wrong, it's possible that the world was created 1 nanosecond ago and the earth is actually flat and our memories never happened. I could come up with bullsh!t possibilities all day, all of which are unimagenly unlikely, but still possible.
You're just being contrary for it's own sake. That would still fall under "all human beings can do is work with the physical laws of the universe we can perceive".
You still lose, Sherlock, because if your logic is correct, then nothing can be absolutely proven...including chess being a forced draw. You're not helping yourself here.
I never said that chess was proved to be a draw, I said that it's almost certainly a draw. Since you are incapable of comprehending probability, I'll make it simple for you: Lets say that there is a game where there's a 97% percent chance that you lose 1000$ and a 3% chance that you win 1000$, would you play?
I never said that chess was proved to be a draw, I said that it's almost certainly a draw. Since you are incapable of comprehending probability, I'll make it simple for you: Lets say that there is a game where there's a 97% percent chance that you lose 1000$ and a 3% chance that you win 1000$, would you play?
Obviously not, but then, that's not what the issue currently being discussed is about. Nobody has said it's not most likely that chess would be a forced draw if there were a proof. But, there isn't one, nor is there going to be one in any currently foreseeable future.
P.S. There's at least a 70% of a 90% of an 80% chance that I understand more about probability than you do.
I never said that chess was proved to be a draw, I said that it's almost certainly a draw. Since you are incapable of comprehending probability, I'll make it simple for you: Lets say that there is a game where there's a 97% percent chance that you lose 1000$ and a 3% chance that you win 1000$, would you play?
Obviously not, but then, that's not what the issue currently being discussed is about.
It is. Proving that chess is a draw is impossible, but its overwhelmingly likley that chess is a draw.
I never said that chess was proved to be a draw, I said that it's almost certainly a draw. Since you are incapable of comprehending probability, I'll make it simple for you: Lets say that there is a game where there's a 97% percent chance that you lose 1000$ and a 3% chance that you win 1000$, would you play?
Obviously not, but then, that's not what the issue currently being discussed is about.
It is. Proving that chess is a draw is impossible, but its overwhelmingly likley that chess is a draw.
Thanks for agreeing then. Chess is not a forced draw or win. You are just arguing over the value of "overwhelmingly". But that is largely immaterial because of the orders of magnitude involved, as already pointed out.
You might also want to go back and change your original post where you state that computers have proven chess is a draw. Thanks for admitting you were inaccurate.
Anyone who believes that chess is a forced win in the computer age is delusional. Modern computers have proven that chess is a draw. In the top levels of correspondence chess(where engines are allowed) there is a 97% draw rate.
When you say chess has been proven to be a draw, what do you mean exactly? Because computers have not done it.
Forget the 97% that was apparently a percentage of draws in high level correspondence chess, It means something as when humans and computers get stronger--there are more and more draws./.
At the VERY HIGHEST level of correspondence chess we see 100% draws. Please refer to the correspondence tournament which started Sept 3th 2017, This tournament had only the very best correspondence players. There was an 8 way tie for first place as ALL the games were drawn!
Each player played 7 games--so as to play all of his opposition and each player scored 7 draws or
3 1/2 points. r
Reference MT von OOsterom, Joop van Oosterom Memorial [hjope someone prints this article] Because of this tournament and other games--players are realizing they cannot win a game vs best opposition One more piece of evidence that chess is a draw.
Do you know what a hyperbole is?
It's just hyperbole, not "a" hyperbole
.