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

Actually, those analogies are off, and the typical response of people that are just trying to be dweebs in a discussion (or sometimes they heard this argument somewhere else and are too ignorant to realize it's a bad analogy, so they pass it along...see:  people that watch the same news channel every day and never get news anywhere else). 

Hedgehogs and humans have scientifically proven brain characteristics, and imaginary space hedgehogs would be a different race, not actual hedgehogs.  It's embarrassing that to be safe I have to assume that this wasn't purely sarcasm, but that's the world we live in now...a world full of dumb people being fed misinformation that they swallow whole like hamsters stuffing their face with baby carrots, every single day. 

The argument that there are discoveries and shortcuts to proving chess is a solved game *is* also a possibility, but whereas we can at least posit the notion that technology will crunch the numbers somehow in the future, we have no breakthrough in solving chess via some method approximating geometric theorems built one top of the other.  They all stop right around the point that Magnus Carlsen says "I don't understand the mate in 30, but I'll take the engines word for it".  There is zero (nada, zilch) significant progress on this front.

Either way, chess is nowhere near being proven a forced draw.  Our best possibilities fall at least 10^30 short.

btickl.er  You really did not elaborate why the analogy falls short in your opinion?

Space/universe is so vast that that there could be other planets with hedgehogs. and they might have originated from earth--just as some believe life on earth came from outside the earth.

Because Magnus does not understand a certain mate in 30 soon after the game finished means almost nothing for several reasons which I already explained [and you are trying to ignore]

The fact that you demand math proof when you know this is not possible and you reject all other evidence tells us something about yourself as the evidence is over whelming.

We are playing a thematic tournament in LLS on the main line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 3.c3 f5.

The tournament is almost over, and looking at the games I can say that white has a small practical advantage in the line 4.c3 fxe4 5.Nxe5 Bd6 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Bf5, but this isn't the sort of advantage that can bring a victory in a correspondence game. Black's position is fully defensible, although IMO a bit clumsy to defend at an OTB game.

I did, in fact, elaborate.  There's no "earth hedgehogs in space" scenario, and again, if there were, those would no longer be hedgehogs, they would have evolved into a different race .  In any case, it's a joke, not a serious analogy.

Your explanations on Magnus Carlsen's behalf are less than convincing...about as convincing as your prior arguments in years past when you claimed to speak for all 1500-ish GMs around the world.

Clearly the evidence is not overwhelming, or it would have overwhelmed opposition by now, over 7 years later .  Please try to acknowledge at least *some* self-evident truths here.

btickler of course there are no earth hedgehogs in space as being in space would kill them, But they could be on other planets?

Do You have math proof that there are no hedgehogs on other planets????What math proof do you have that hedgehogs on other planet would evolve into another race?  Maybe they have not had time  to evolve? Maybe conditions on the planet freeze evolution?

I doubt if you even know or understand why Magnus not understanding a certain mate in 30 means almost nothing in  our discussion of perfect games or best play?

Your idea that if the evidence was overwhelming that the evidence  would have overwhelmed opposition by now is not logical because of these reasons

1. the opposition does not have the chess ability to understand most of the evidence

2. The opposition does not even know most of the evidence.

3. The opposition usually does not even know who or what plays the very strongest chess?

4. there are some members of the opposition who who are so closed minded  that they reject almost all of the evidence

5. the evidence has become even more stronger in 7 years so hard to compare the evidence of 7 years ago from the current evidence available.

6. Some are even so closed minded that they even try to disparage my chess ability and knowledge and/or disparage me because my memory is not what it used to be.

None of those things are actually representative of overwhelming evidence .  You have yet to put anything significant forth, you just keep saying you have it.  And I'm not talking about how chess is easier to draw due to material balance ala K vs. K + N + N, or draw rates at high level tournaments, for example.  Those arguments are known, put forth by many before you, and not actually conclusive in any way.

I'm not going to dignify your hedgehog BS any further .  

Guys, give it a rest!

You're right, I was just trying to make a joke because hypothetical hedgehogs are funny to me. Of course the problem here is trying to get a good definition of what a hedgehog is.

I would say "it's all good", but now I have to deflect even more of Ponz's surreal arguments since he took you seriously .

Another bad analogy.

Billions of tons of CO2/year from man-made sources along with rising record temperatures is plenty of proof.  But take it to Elroch's thread.  Ponz should be so lucky as to have anything that solid .

Every challenge in this thread is like dropping a size 20 Trico on the stream in early July before the sun hits the water.

btickler You are using a strawman  I never said the  6 points had to do with the question of this forum.  They were just responding to your rather foolish statement that if there was overwhelming evidence the  opposition would agree that chess has been proven a draw 

 You really should know better than that?

However it seems apparent that you do not even know all of the evidence which has been provided for chess being a draw. Thus you are posting out of ignorance.

I dont think there are too many "chess is a draw" deniers. There might be a lot of "chess is proven to be a draw" deniers though. 

Except one has plenty of scientific evidence and the other has none .  Ergo, my point.

Ponz gets both my joke and analogy. But you, being so literal-minded, think it has to be one or the other, and both went over your head.

(1) Scientists can study the brain characteristics of humans and hedgehogs but no brain experiments can reveal the IQ scores of either group. If you disagree, provide links to any such studies and their results. Obviously you can't; therefore you can't prove your IQ is higher than a hedgehog's.

(2) For the sake of argument, suppose such a brain experiment is possible, predicting your IQ and a hedgehog's. Then you're faced with the problem of sampling size. You can't possibly perform this experiment with millions of hedgehogs, and only one genius hedgehog is required to disprove your claim that your IQ is higher. So again, you don't know that you're smarter than a hedgehog.

(3) How do you know that the same species of hedgehogs doesn't exist on other planets and galaxies? Have you visited every planet of the universe? Of course not. So you have no proof. All you have is faith.

Regarding the Ruy variation  1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Bb5  Bc5  4. c3  f5--back in the day I had a history of doing well with Black.  Won the Greater Peoria Open using that line vs a master. 

However in 1972 I analyzed a good line for White in that variation. Was looking for a completely new opening but decided to play in the 1973 U S Open in Chicago which   was a drive from my home and I still had to work. Won my first 3 games--one I had Black in that opening.  Then in 4th round drew with one of the top players in the United States but the game did not end until 2 AM and I had to drive back to my home and get 2 hours sleep and then go to work and back to Chicago and was then paired with a grandmaster. That game lasted 50 moves before I won. My 6th round game I played against the Chicago Champ and won so now a score of 5 1/2 out of 6. 

I had decided to withdraw from the 12 round tournament because of lack of sleep but then 4 of my friends drove me back to Chicago to play the 7th round.  

I was paired with a well known master from Canada. But he was staying at the tournament hotel and had seen the score sheet from a game I won in the 3rd round. 

We were up on a platform over looking more than 750 other players. My opponent had been studying that variation of the Ruy Lopez and came up with the line I feared.   I lost horribly

Yes, and all we have is faith that the universe and anything outside our consciousness exists.  Prove to another human being that hedgehogs or chess even exists with 100% certainty.  You can't.  Yadda yadda yadda.  None of your extremely basic argument went over my head.  It's just not really an argument worthy of discussion, and by even participating here we're tacitly agreeing to the existence of chess and the existence of the issue.  It's the argument of someone who wants to think they scored a point in an argument .  

Shoo.  

I was answering your post .   The feeling is mutual, but then I felt that way before this engagement.  I guess I should qualify that...it's often pointless to try and engage with someone who is not going to change their mind if you are replying for that express purpose.  However, showing someone's faulty premise to others so you might not encounter the same faulty premise in future still has value.

From your end though...feel free to stop posting replies directed my way if you actually don't want to engage with me.  That would be logical, yes?

And yet, I used "hoist with his own petard" (it's actually "with" by the way, not "by") quite recently in a post.  Maybe you saw it.  

Your continued reliance on trying to denigrate others' intelligence is not elevating your own.  You are also continuing to engage (and on someone else's behalf this time) with someone you claim it is pointless to talk to.  The logical conclusion is that you have dispensed with your own reasoning, due to feeling like you have not come out on top here.  Sorry, it happens.  You'll cope.

White can’t be winning; he has no king!