..and that arbitrary on passant nonsense is st 
pid too !
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
9320
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
The question of this forum is not "Is chess math solved?" I can give the answer to that. "Chess is not math solved."
and if a/o needs proof ?...lookit all the best players. nunna them have mucha a skillset for arithmetic. let alone coding. no credits for any chess software.
ty fonz .
okay what's with the feet pic
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8067
Of course white has an advantage at the start of the game, that’s why players complain when they get assigned more blacks than whites in a chess tournament. With perfect play, white should maintain that advantage all the way into the endgame. Therefore chess is IMO a win for white with best play.
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8068
White wins more because the opening position awards white a tempo, of course.
(Of course, Iron-Toad's conclusion is overplaying it, but it is a valid hypothesis).
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8069
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
It is irrefutable fact that white wins more often than black in all types of chess and all levels of strength. Different people here posit different reasons for this but it may be because white has enough of an advantage to win with perfect play. In practical terms, the slightest inaccuracies negate this advantage at the highest levels but the possibility can't be dismissed out of hand with the usual "you're not qualified to comment because if you were as smart and knew as much as me you would understand that I must be right" malarkey.
That goes so directly against expert opinion and years of evidence that you are required to give evidence in support rather than saying "it may be". The moon "may be" made of cream cheese.
Also you aren't adressing my arguments. I may look very smart but I don't think I claimed it. I don't really need to. My arguments speak for me but if you don't address them, you aren't engaging with arguments at all. Just making oblique assertions.
I was not making any judgement concerning the validity of anyone's assertions, only insisting that any evidence should be considered.
It does not surprise me that those here who consider themselves the highest authority continue with the "I have put forth a conclusion and it must be acknowledged as correct unless decisively disproved using only criteria I approve" line. Talk a closed logical loop!
If the rest of us were to go through this and other threads and read your comments we would not have enough combined fingers and toes to count all the instances of "my father's IQ is 170 and my wife is in Mensa so I must have a superior intelligence" or "you are not accepting the definition of perfect play (or whatever) that WE have decided upon" or "I thought you were intelligent but now that you disagree with me I realize that I was seriously mistaken" or the many other derogatory comments that shed no light on the actual subject.
This is nothing more nor less than an ad hom attack by you. It certainly does you no credit at all. Also you seem to be a repeat account, because I don't remember you from early on and yet you claim to have a more intimate knowledge of it than I have. I certainly don't remember the events that you claim occurred. I do remember a few trolls like you though, who can't form coherent arguments but take themselves extremely seriously, so they attack the other person, wait til they get irritated and then pretend they started the trolling. If you make a habit of talking rubbish, which seems very likely, then it isn't any wonder that people call you out on it, since you take yourslf very seriously.
You're quite clearly one of a number of people who have visited this thread recently, to start an unpleasant argument with other people whom you've targetted. Please forgive me if I think you're a bit of a dilly kid.
I see how well you refrain from ad hominem attacks. Please note that the post you originally quote makes no mention of you, you just knew that anyone complaining about someone dismissing others' opinions, or their not accepting someone's opinions as settled fact must be talking about you. I don't apologize for saying calling people unqualified to have an opinion, or just trolls, or talking rubbish, or being dishonest or a dilly kid contributes nothing and is unpleasant for everyone else.
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8070
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz doesn't use this site to play chess, has been a member for over two and a half years, has one follower and 500 posts to his name. It may be a spare, dormant account that someone else created, for such a time that the other account loses face or gets banned. The person has an obsession with IQ. Now who could it be? I think I smell a rat again.
Now I MUST be a fraud, a phony account, have an obsession with IQ, and will be banned. I don't care for online speed chess, used chess.com for the opening book and analysis computer, and only read and posted on a few forums once we were stuck at home by the pandemic. This is my only account, and as for honesty, Mark G Paetz is my actual name, I see no reason to make up an anonymous identity.
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8071
Optimissed wrote:
Look, you've started a series of dilly ad hominem attacks. I haven't. You have. It's possible that you're on the level but you're autistic or something. If so, don't take it out on other people. Calm down and desist from attacking other people, because of some imagined harm they seemed to have done you. That is my best advice. Heed it and you'll improve your situation. Ignore it and you'll be the loser because you'll get angrier and angrier and more and more outraged, and all because you don't know when to stop.
So be a good fellow and stop now. Thanks.
Sage advice, you should follow it yourself. Note that you are the only one calling me derogatory names.
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8072
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
It is irrefutable fact that white wins more often than black in all types of chess and all levels of strength. Different people here posit different reasons for this but it may be because white has enough of an advantage to win with perfect play. In practical terms, the slightest inaccuracies negate this advantage at the highest levels but the possibility can't be dismissed out of hand with the usual "you're not qualified to comment because if you were as smart and knew as much as me you would understand that I must be right" malarkey.
That goes so directly against expert opinion and years of evidence that you are required to give evidence in support rather than saying "it may be". The moon "may be" made of cream cheese.
Also you aren't adressing my arguments. I may look very smart but I don't think I claimed it. I don't really need to. My arguments speak for me but if you don't address them, you aren't engaging with arguments at all. Just making oblique assertions.
I was not making any judgement concerning the validity of anyone's assertions, only insisting that any evidence should be considered.
It does not surprise me that those here who consider themselves the highest authority continue with the "I have put forth a conclusion and it must be acknowledged as correct unless decisively disproved using only criteria I approve" line. Talk a closed logical loop!
If the rest of us were to go through this and other threads and read your comments we would not have enough combined fingers and toes to count all the instances of "my father's IQ is 170 and my wife is in Mensa so I must have a superior intelligence" or "you are not accepting the definition of perfect play (or whatever) that WE have decided upon" or "I thought you were intelligent but now that you disagree with me I realize that I was seriously mistaken" or the many other derogatory comments that shed no light on the actual subject.
Yep, my dog has an I.Q. of 150!
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8073
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
..and that arbitrary on passant nonsense is st pid too !
Yeah, and that check and checkmate stuff stinks too....why can't I just play with the King as another piece and win by taking all the opponents pieces?
Jul 14, 2021
0
#8074
hoodoothere wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
..and that arbitrary on passant nonsense is st pid too !
Yeah, and that check and checkmate stuff stinks too....why can't I just play with the King as another piece and win by taking all the opponents pieces?
While we're at it, let's get rid of that crazy "pawn-promotion" move! Doesn't make sense, is it some kind of magic?
Why can't I have 3 girl friends? Why can't all draws not be counted? Why do we have those pesky knights who act weird?
not sure abt open book chess. feel like i wanna dismiss it. sorry fonz. kinda corny.
What is "open book chess"?
Jul 17, 2021
0
#8079
Having legal access to books while playing presumably (true of daily chess on chess.com).
ponz111 wrote:
Why can't I have 3 girl friends? Why can't all draws not be counted? Why do we have those pesky knights who act weird?
Why can't the folks in your thread stand up and fly right? Where did they learn to write, and think? At the arcade, playing video chess games and pulling the arm on "one-arm-slot machines, (aka one-arm bandits)?"
What a nuthouse thread. Thoroughly entertaining. Onward...
That game had at least 2 errors. 11. ...Bc5 by Kasparov was an error as Karpov could have played
12. Be3 Bxe3 13. Qa4+ retaining the extra pawn. [source game report]
...chess could be a draw if the time control is 40 moves in 40 yrs. iows absurdify chess and u can have that draw stuff fonz.
and ste. plz disclose ur game source report...and do it now. as im not asking u. im telling u.
(squinting...)