I just got here. Is this thread still discussing OP on post #4478
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
btickler you do not respond to my posts about some specific lies you make. Many are very obviously lies. You do not respond because you have no defense. It very well miight be that your fuzzy thinking caused you to lie--if so say sol!!
Optimissed I do not say I am 100% sure chess is a draw simply because I am not 100% sure of anything. It is possible we are just part of a computer simulation and do not know it?
Optimissed There are other possible reasons I am not 100% sure of anything--other than being part of a computer simulation. There is a very slight chance that I could be in hell and suffering from some people who are very closed minded!
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
As a rule of thumb, however, the online world is frequented by many, many people who ask for evidence merely as a stalling device, since whatever is offered them is always rejected on this or that pretext, without any attempt to even understand why it's evidence. So quite a while ago I stopped responding to anyone who asks for evidence regarding anything unless they have previously demonstrated that they are actually capable of understanding evidence rather than automatically rejecting it, which is the common modus operandi of those who have no wish to actually discuss anything. I think that others have taken the lead .... not on this site, I hasten to add. It's better to allow people to find evidence for themselves and to educate themselves in the process.
So what type of evidence would you require?
I have found that is the best way also. If I say something, it's not credible. And if I cite some source, that source is REALLY not credible. Same for you. If you say something, it's taken with a grain of salt. Because you said it. And if you cite a source, it's naturally a very biased source that only crackpots and lemmings would ever take seriously.
But if we both find out for ourselves, using resources we find ourselves, we are much more likely to come to a truly informed conclusion. All too often people dig in with their pre-determined conclusion. That prevents acknowledging new information here, but at least it doesn't prevent them from finding out about it themselves.
I've said from the beginning chess could be a draw. But it could be a forced win too. I think there isn't enough information yet to know for sure. Right now it's just educated guesses. But you are spot on about the circus some people go through with what they want to be their "evidence".
As for you, PatriotGames, all I can say is that if I were 135 years younger and Christine (or you!) wouldn't get so cross with me, I'd ask for you hand in marriage. It would be one of like minds, although I suspect you're more easy-going than I am sometimes. 😁
That's very sweet of you. I guess it really depends on the reasons I would ever get cross with you. We are probably like minded in a few ways but I know we disagree on some things too. You just come across as likeable, so the disagreement really doesn't matter much.
ponz111 wrote:
Optimissed There are other possible reasons I am not 100% sure of anything--other than being part of a computer simulation. There is a very slight chance that I could be in hell and suffering from some people who are very closed minded!
lol. that's probably the funniest thing I've heard you say.
ponz111 wrote:
btickler you do not respond to my posts about some specific lies you make. Many are very obviously lies. You do not respond because you have no defense. It very well miight be that your fuzzy thinking caused you to lie--if so say sol!!
And you continue to say things are lies when you haven't the foggiest notion 
. Your mindset is that if anyone that cannot agree with your copious amount of posts that add up to nothing, then people are out to get you.
This is common for people that spout a lot of BS...that their ego cannot fathom they are mistaken. I can think of 3 excellent examples of posters that do this in this very thread...and no, I'm not one of them.
Optimissed wrote:
You simply refuse to think about why others disagree with you. That's a form of dishonesty that isn't very attractive.
No, I *have* thought about it, but it doesn't really matter why you disagree with *me*, because you and Ponz are incorrect about the issue at hand. Ask your would-be wife, I guess, who also thinks Ponz (and you) are ultimately wrong in making the claim that chess is forced draw .
As for being aggressive, I'm clearly no more aggressive than you in this thread. Why did you post 3 times in row, all directed my way? Why did you feel the need to jump back in at all when I mentioned that that poster was right about Ponz? Physician, heal thyself.
As for being attractive, well, I prefer the women in my life to determine that, not you . I couldn't care less if you like me or not. You are not in the Venn diagram of people I respect enough to value approval from. I base this in years and years of reading your "I think I am more intellectual than I am" posts, so...it's not some impromptu opinion I have formed because we have clashed here. It's a well formed opinion curated over time.
That's why it's amusing when you make conciliatory overtures and invite us to become buddies in the arena you no doubt wish you belonged in . Just...no.
Thje question of this forum is Not "can it be proven chess iks a draw?" However I do think there is enough evidence to prove chess is a draw,
The question really asks everyone's opinion is chess a draw with best play on both sides?
There are 3 popular answers 1. chess is a draw 2. chess is not a draw 3. I don't know if chess is a draw or not?
There is an obvious correlation that the more you know about chess--the more likely you will think chess iks a draw.
There are no good evidence
Ponz: "Yes there are you are uneducated"
Ok show the evidence
Ponz: "You are ignorant how can you not know the evidence...there are many evidence...so many evidence that it clearly proves my point".
Show the evidence
Ponz: "You are not a strong player how do you even have a say in this? I am surprised you don't know the evidence provided. Your argument is invalid and I'm right."
...
This forum in a nutshell
Eden Except you are misquoting me and misrepresenting what I say.
Optimissed wrote:
I prefer to make short posts, to the point, as points occur to me. It's a matter of style and it's no business of yours if I do that.
Look, it isn't of any great consequence to me whether you wish to be pleasant. It's life-changing for you and immaterial to me.
I don't "wish to belong" anywhere where people have these kinds of ego-problems. I'm simply trying to be nice and helpful. I'm aware by now that you are quite intelligent and I'm aware that you have a personality disorder that causes you to feel superior to all other life-forms, which causes you a lot of pain because you constantly have to justify it. I'm sorry to say it really, but it stands out a mile.
Intellectual?
I get called intellectual quite a bit. I don't see myself as an intellectual. What I am's different. I have a very clear mind at times and I'm also creative. I was a child prodigy but never really thought of as "intellectual". I can sort of do the intellectual act but that's all. I like to keep my words short and my sentences intelligible, unlike some. What I am is knowledgeable on a wide range of things, opinionated, because like you I've thought about a lot of stuff and reached some conclusions. But unlike yours, my opinions are completely fluid and constantly subject to change. I'd still be just as opinionated about a revised opinion, of course. That just comes with the kind of country. I don't have to or try to show off. I do like to talk about stuff and when done in public, there are always people who don't like it because they should be the ones talking. Have I left anything out? I'm physically strong, fit and healthy for 69 happy, confident and, of course brilliant. I have a lovely wife who is also rather brilliant. There aren't enough hours in the day to do what I try to do and I suppose that's great. Are you happy? You don't seem it but appearances can be deceptive.
You curate your opinions, do you? That's been a fashionable word for about five years. Is it like curing your opinions in vinegar?
Your post was actually longer than mine .
Let's finish this "you're upset/affected by this" premise you keep trying to push, shall we?
(This will be a long one, for those that aren't interested)
I see no credible evidence that any of this is "life-changing" for me, or that I have a personality disorder . If you want to lay out your "evidence", I'll happily refute it, but I warn you, if you go back digging around you'll find precious little to grasp onto and you might realize that you have been reading into things a little more than you thought. Still, have at it.
People always try to paint me as being on tilt, raging in some basement I live in, etc. It's just a defense mechanism that people use to salvage their own egos. It makes them feel better to pretend I'm angry and frustrated and have some pitiful existence while I am easily refuting their points. People don't like to have their arguments logically stripped down and exposed....especially people with large egos about how smart they think they are relative to others around them.
If you pay close attention, you'll find that I am nice as pie to everyone except 2 kinds of posters:
- Trolls
- Smug people making assertions *that don't hold water* (key), and especially smug people whose "information"/point of view is toxic/harmful if digested whole by others. If you are on point, then chatter away .
In that respect, I admit I am somewhat of a conditional vigilante. I have no problem holding up a mirror to people in these 2 arenas, and I am passably good at it. I give in kind, for the most part (I never engage in "your a moron!" (sic), etc.), because I find that hoisting people on their own petard helps quell their social dysfunction in the long term much better than just pounding them into the ground, which just makes them hateful and more likely to spout the same BS elsewhere. You have to show people their own BS for them to get it. The same thing happening in this thread also applies to Covid-dismissers, climate change deniers, etc. The talking points they live by can only survive if not exposed to scrutiny.
Now some people are dense, and never get it . But most do. You can tell by the posts they choose never to answer, or the points that are too on target that they ignore/gloss over. When Tumpy walks himself into a buzzsaw, he disappears for a week, for example (and he's still not back from his latest self-imposed sojourn). For those that don't get it at all (need I even mention an example?), exposing how someone does business still informs others and, in fact, informing others of BS is more often than not my primary goal, and changing the troll/smug poster's mind is secondary and a bonus if it happens.
Case in point, just above me Eden103 has very accurately gleaned the underlying essence of Ponz's twisting and contorting, which becomes more apparent the more that Ponz tries to argue without any real support/backup. That only happens if people challenge his BS when he repeats it ad nauseum.
The reason all your arguments about my internal motivations etc. fall short is because you just don't get that I don't actually care about you...I'm not just "pretending" that you don't upset me . You're just another mosquito in the zapper. If you keep buzzing around, you'll be zapped eventually (all people in the 2 categories I mentioned above eventually get zapped, because they have built-in weaknesses they *cannot* shed), but until then there's no joy in watching you circle the blue light.
If you want to prove me wrong, go for it, but I'm a Petrosian in terms of discussions/debates. I might not win all the time, but I very rarely lose. Since 2013, I can count the number of times someone has caused me to say "oops" because I legitimately overstepped on my position on the forums here on one hand, with one or two fingers left over. It won't happen on this thread, because I am right, and all the facts are on my side of the argument, but that doesn't mean I won't eventually say something in a thread elsewhere that is logically assailable. But I don't engage in fights I am not practically assured at least a draw in, and I don't often get suckered into a bad argument after I've engaged...because I'm not here to win for winning's sake, and I get no particular satisfaction out of beating somebody, so I don't need to intentionally put myself out on a limb to do so. I am here to show people differing and valid perspectives when they are being fed crap. And when you stick to that goal, it's almost impossible for someone to put you on tilt, or to lure you into saying something illogical.
I strongly believe that everyone (without a legit learning disability) is a potentially just as smart as anyone else, and I don't assume I am smarter than anybody unless they have made a case for themselves that indicates otherwise . But likewise, I assume nobody is smarter than I am until proven otherwise. This is pretty much how any confident human being should conduct themselves, assuming equality by default. I don't think I am inherently any smarter than you. I just don't have your weaknesses, the ones that cause you to overplay your hand with regularity.
I'm not going to exhaustively address your assertion that you don't like to show off or consider yourself an intellectual while in the same post listing all your mental and physical virtues and your wife (and recently your 169-190 self-reported IQ). That argument is hollow and it doesn't take me saying anything extra for everyone to see it. I will say it's something you should work on hiding, if not conquering. It makes it easy to pick you apart and for others to see through you while it is happening.
You finished up by trying to make fun of me for using the term "curated", as if this were some cutting insight. Necessary?
ponz111 wrote:
Thje question of this forum is Not "can it be proven chess iks a draw?" However I do think there is enough evidence to prove chess is a draw,
The question really asks everyone's opinion is chess a draw with best play on both sides?
There are 3 popular answers 1. chess is a draw 2. chess is not a draw 3. I don't know if chess is a draw or not?
There is an obvious correlation that the more you know about chess--the more likely you will think chess iks a draw.
...and so, the cycle completes again, and Ponz symbolically backs off until the next time he forgets and asserts that he has 100% proven that chess is a forced draw.
btickler Do you have a reading comprehension problem? In my post #4498 I did not back off on anything. Also there is no indication in that post that I have forgotten anythtng?
One of the dumbest things I ever did: Was a teenager and had a girl friend and a 1957 car. Wanted to find a place to be alone with her and not observed, Finally found a subdivision which had a large field opposite a row of houses. Pretty far away from my home and her home and it was getting dark. Drove to the back of the field and my car got stuck in some mud .
Oh, now OPTI!!!! You can't leave us hanging. Like Paul Harvey always said, "And know we NEED the rest of the story...
A 1957, wow! We can talk about how that dates you...,,,, or we can talk about old cars. Either way, age matters, But, bottom line is that era of car generally had plenty of space to roll around in, if you get my drift. Oh, please do tell. Every boy loves a happt ending!
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I prefer to make short posts, to the point, as points occur to me. It's a matter of style and it's no business of yours if I do that.
Look, it isn't of any great consequence to me whether you wish to be pleasant. It's life-changing for you and immaterial to me.>>>
<<<Your post was actually longer than mine . Let's finish this "you're upset/affected by this" premise you keep trying to push, shall we? >>>
I'll just say that you seem a little emotional and I think that the only thing I'm pushing is buttons.
The weather's been miserable here for a few days. Up until Wednesday it was lovely though. Pity I was too busy to get out for a walk. I'm from the English Lake District and used to spent quite a lot of time in the hills, whenever I could.
The stupidest thing I ever did, when walking, was to climb down Great End, which is an outcrop on the Scafell Massif, just as evening was approaching, wearing a full frame rucksack containing survival gear and a small amount of food. It is something you definitely should NOT do and I decided to do it, to save time. I was climbing down a dry waterfall (another complete no-no) and halfway down I got to an overhanging bit which involved changing hands and stepping over a chasm, about 15 feet deep above broken rock. Definite severe injury if I fell and night was approaching. I decided to climb back up and LO!, the external rucksack frame jammed against the overhang. It was impossible to move so I stopped there on the bare rock face on finger and toe holds for ten or fifteen minutes, wondering what to do. I could take off the rucksack and drop it and then climb up but if I had an accident, I was separated from my survival gear. Then it started to drizzle slightly with fine rain and my fingers were getting tired. I worked out exactly the movements I had do to step over the chasm, decided I had to do it then and there, and successfully climbed down Great End just as it was starting to get dark. Definitely a completely stupid thing to do and I could easily have been killed. I learned a valuable lesson from that, which stood me in good stead later in my life.
Oh sorry, where were we?
(This will be a long one, for those that aren't interested) I see no credible evidence that any of this is "life-changing" for me, or that I have a personality disorder. If you want to lay out your "evidence", I'll happily refute it .... >>>
Well, obviously not. You only recognise evidence when it suits you. You've made that quite obvious in this thread. Obviously you know you'll refute the evidence whatever it may be and that is itself evidence of the personality disorder, but never mind with that. I'm not a psychotherapist. That's my wife, actually.
People always try to paint me as being on tilt, raging in some basement I live in, etc. It's just a defense mechanism that people use to salvage their own egos. It makes them feel better to pretend I'm angry and frustrated and have some pitiful existence while I am easily refuting their points. People don't like to have their arguments logically stripped down and exposed....especially people with large egos about how smart they think they are relative to others around them.>>>
That's you, isn't it? You make it obvious. I mean, I've been honest about myself but I don't generally try to bring others down. I generally like all people, whatever their faults. I would say that you don't and that may be where the trouble lies. I genuinely like you because I see a complete honesty in you and you're intelligent, but that doesn't mean you come to sensible conclusions all the time. It seems to be more like you against the World. That's why I'm saying that you should readjust slightly. Mellow down. Accept that you can make mistakes and you'll find you make less of them as time goes on because your psyche will readjust to your new level of honesty. You'll become more well-liked. That will enable you to influence others for the better and the World will be a slightly happier place. Every little helps, so don't knock it.
If you pay close attention, you'll find that I am nice as pie to everyone except 2 kinds of posters :- Trolls
- Smug people making assertions *that don't hold water* (key), and especially smug people whose "information"/point of view is toxic/harmful if digested whole by others.
You don't seem to understand that's YOU judging others and I don't believe you have the experience and ability to do that well. So you end up always pitting yourself against others. I mean, Ponz is actually making valid points but they're points that you refuse to recognise. So you condemn him for it and he reacts and maybe repeats himself. You accuse him of endlessly repeating himself but don't you see that you are doing exactly that? You're doing it destructively and I do understand why he accuses you of lying. It really is a case of two people who are used to relying on different TYPES of evidence and my sympathies are with Ponz not because I agree with him but because you won't recognise that it's necessary to rely on whatever evidence IS available and not on what isn't.
If you don't mind, I'll cut it short there. The rest of it somewhat reminds me of having to defend myself in the Supreme Court at Ottawa against my ex-wife's accusations. Actually, yours aren't as bad as hers were, which were so ridiculous that it ended up with HER lawyer, from a top firm in Ottawa, which my ex-wife paid for, giving ME free legal advice, probably charged to my ex-wife, because she thought what I was going through was so plainly wrong and crazy that she decided she needed to help me rather than my ex-wife since I was obviously the injured party. And all good things end well. That was 1984 and a year later I met Christine. Sometimes I really think I have my own personal Guardian Angel, which was the point of the rock-climbing narrative.
I guess I should just learn not expect more than for you to use posts as launching pads to self-aggrandize and tell anecdotes about yourself. I mean, at least have them be directly relevant. You will reach for seemingly any handhold to feed your need for people to see you as smart/successful.
I don't care about your wife, or your stories...I have my own uplifting anecdotes, I just don't use them in debates to prop up my self-image . I might use one to illustrate a point. I'm sure I would get more reality and insight from your ex-wife in Ottawa. Everything from your reaching "the rest of it somewhat reminds me" segue is pure self-indulgence. Who cares? You have friends and family for sharing that stuff...right?
Whether chess is proven to be a forced draw or not is not some relativist question that philosophers can wax poetic about. It is proven, or it isn't. And right now and for any foreseeable future...it isn't. Not by *any* standard of evidence. Ponz likes to periodically assert that it is. When he does he will be opposed in that false claim (and not just by me).
I'm not here commenting in this thread to be well liked/loved. I have that in spades in all the arenas that actually mean anything . Yes, I judge other people's arguments (though I have defended Ponz on more than one occasion to people knocking his pedigree), when they double and triple (and quadruple and quintuple) down on incorrect information/conclusions. This is not the Care Bears forum.
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Thje question of this forum is Not "can it be proven chess iks a draw?" However I do think there is enough evidence to prove chess is a draw,
The question really asks everyone's opinion is chess a draw with best play on both sides?
There are 3 popular answers 1. chess is a draw 2. chess is not a draw 3. I don't know if chess is a draw or not?
There is an obvious correlation that the more you know about chess--the more likely you will think chess iks a draw.
...and so, the cycle completes again, and Ponz symbolically backs off until the next time he forgets and asserts that he has 100% proven that chess is a forced draw.
This sums up the difficulty. Ponz has accused you of lying. Here you are making what seems to be a deliberate accusation against him of claiming to have proven that chess is a forced draw. This accusation seems to be false because Ponz is only saying that he is certain that chess is a forced draw and so are most if not all other commentators on the subject.
So you see? This will go endlessly round in circles and all because you are picking on Ponz and bullying him, and he's defending himself and taking a swipe at you.
The people here complaining that this is endlessly going round in circles are quite right and if you are as analytical as you claim to be then shouldn't it be you who recognises it and calls a halt?
Ponz has claimed dozens times in the course of this thread that he has proven beyond a doubt chess is a forced draw. And he has also backed off to "nobody can be 100% sure but I am 99.9% sure" dozens of times. Apparently, you cannot grasp that somebody could cycle between claiming something outright, then backing off their position when their feet are held to the fire. For you, his very last post represents his position throughout time. I don't get why this is hard to understand, though...certain political figures do this make-a-claim/pull-back-from-a-claim cycle every single day.
I did call a halt, Sherlock. It was the post where I said this was the end of the cycle until next time. But you are right, this is will go on endlessly in a cycle that repeats every several months (or as long as it takes Ponz to forget the last go-round)...well, not endlessly, because at some point Ponz will be incapable of posting even semi-coherently anymore.
But yeah, this go round is pretty much over, or would be if you weren't still talking. But I don't call halts here. Ponz does that when he backs off and eventually stops making his claim for a while.
You can rest assured though, I'll be back the very next time Ponz says, without caveat or asterisk, that he has proven chess is a forced draw.
Optimissed wrote:
You finished up by trying to make fun of me for using the term "curated", as if this were some cutting insight. Necessary?>>
Well, the word "curated", which started being used by pretentious people a few years since, is very like "cured"; and so I was suggesting that you pickle your opinions in vinegar, which might make them generally acerbic. So it worked ok.
I use lots of words, whether or not they are trendy. I have a large vocabulary. If, perhaps, I had force-fit it into the conversation awkwardly, you might have had a point. But as it is, you felt you needed to get your last dig in, because you are not nearly as benign and above it all as you make yourself out to be .
please loolk at post #4453 where gauranga posts "true" I know gauranga as a strong player. However hs post was ambiguous and some have probably misinterpreted it.
I believe that he very probably meant "true chess is a draw."