True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

01000010 01110100 01101001 01100011 01101011 01101100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110011 01101101 01100001 01110010 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101111 01110000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01101001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01100100

...translate if you are curious.

 

0100000001010111

 

427469636B6C657220697320736D6172746572207468616E206F7074696D6973736564

Nope, that's utterly incorrect. It doesn't "tend" towards 0, it is cero.

Here's an intuitive reason as to why. If it wasn't zero then when summing the probabilities of all the points in all of the dartboard would yield infinity which is nonsense as the probability of hitting the dartboard is 1.

Ermm, probabilities are just real numbers in [0,1]. It doesn't matter if your probability is a limit or not, if it isn't 0, it is strictly greater than 0, that's just algebra.

The real numbers have no infinitesimals... To be fair, they do exist in sets like the hyperreal numbers or the surreal numebrs but the probability measure does NOT have a codomain in such sets.

I did say it was an intuitive explanation, not a formal one...

Dammit! I thought I had succeeded in turning this thread into a Dadaist farce. I turn my back for a few hours and y’all are back at it like a gaggle of grandmothers at Thursday night bingo.

"No, that is not the meaning of "efficient". You should know that."

That's the point.  You're incorrect.  I am pointing it out.

Well, obviously, because they would assume that an alien wouldn't know Telugu but would understand the universal language of maths.

It's a universal language because it's not open to interpretation, not at the fundamental "proofs" level.  Maybe not at the theory on a whiteboard level where conjecture and assumptions are knowingly thrown into the numbers.  That's why listing prime numbers etc. is a go-to for crossing language barriers.  Did you even look at the link?  They showed very easily how to get from dots (interpretable by anyone/anything that can perceive dots ...) to binary to base 10 in a single diagram.

By now, I'm totally used to pompous a%%h&les

I would think you are used to it, mister "my IQ is 160+" ...you manage to drop your (unverified) "credentials" all the time.

I never said the inverse of infinity was zero, hell, infinity isn't even a real number.

Nikki  Why do you wish to try and destroy this thread?  Does it make you feel good? Is this thread about you?    Much of what you post here shows you do not know a whole lot about chess?

 

Ermm, I was correcting your claim about me thinking the inverse of infinity is zero, I couldn't care less about your explanations on infinity and the such. I'm done with you, suffice it to say, my profecy was fullfilled and you indeed kept the technobable, good job in proving me right.

Lol, sorry for insulting your imaginary number.

Ponzie: it’s a stupid thread. It’s obvious that nobody can prove this either way, and yet you keep insisting that it’s a draw because reasons.

Oh. Ouch. I don’t know a whole lot about chess. Now you’ve resorted to ad hominems. Nice. I’m not the one endlessly repeating the same arguments and refusing to accept basic logic, while ignoring arguments that can’t be refuted.

I could only read some of the last couple pages. Three things I know for sure. One, talking about probability and statistics is boring beyond words. Two, Optimissed says it in a way that's much more likeable. Three, Nikki says what's true. 

Nikki  that you don't like a thread is not a good reason to try  to destroy a thread. 

And you are simply wrong --chess is a draw and that has been proven by the EVIDENCE I have given over the years. 

The fact that you don't know much about chess results in you not understanding the EVIDENCE.

By the way, I have a dog named Niki.

If I play with Magnus and I will do my the very best, will there be a Draw? Should one , who states the above result add that the players should be the equally strong which doesn’t exist. Chess is not a draw!

UMKLIDET.  Look at the title of this thread? It has nothing to do with an average player losing a game.

Unbelievable... I have brought up several times what constitutes evidence when making a universal claim, and that your “evidence” does not meet the criteria. You ignore this and simply repeat what you’ve said dozens of times. The basic fact is that it’s inherently impossible to prove a universal claim using sampling and anecdote—can’t be done. Add to this that your samples are tiny and in no way can be proven to be examples of best play, and you end up with something about as useful to proving your point as a pile of Niki’s doo doo on the living room floor.

But of course you’ll just ignore this like you have half a dozen times already, and insist that you are right.

@optimissed - fortunately for you, I repeated the argument two posts above this one. Unfortunately, it’s redundant and simply perpetuates the cycle of pointlessness.