ghosty lady what you mentioned in post #9393 has already been addressed many times.
Also what Elroch posted recently had already been addressed many times.,
Yes, it's been addressed many times (which is why this topic is 470 pages long).
But it's never been resolved.
ghosty lady what you mentioned in post #9393 has already been addressed many times.
wait...it that against the law ??
For many people it will not be resolved. Too many people ignore evidence.
Too many people do not even know what the evidence is?
Even if chess is math proved to be a draw--that will mean nothing to many.
ghosty lady it is not against the law.
Too many people ignore evidence.
YOUR EVIDENCE IS NooOO GOOD !!
AZ will destroy any chessplayer (yes, that includes u) that u can put up against it. THAT IS MY EVIDENCE !...wheres urs ??
think fonzie...THINK !!
AND id be willing to betcha that if u gave AZ white and 1. e4 it would win ANY PERSON or ANY THING if it played 1...f5. iows, theres a forced win for u right there. so we can eliminate that one.
a forced win on move #1 !...until silicons improve.
AZ is not the strongest chess engine.
Yes AZ would beat me badly. But I am not the strongest chess entity.
AZ would not beat the strongest chess entity.
Sorry if you missed all the evidence I have been giving for years.
I wrote a program in python that just found 8 leading zeros in 9,292 seconds...yee !! thats abt 2hrs & 35 minutes. it found it on its 5,477,177,377th try.
the hex is 00000000e00c293f84439267177d983c23b231766c595ffdc31114cc767e632d when using a block # of 8555, a x-action # of 131239418039181A, & a previous hash of B. in january 2009 i woulda got 50 bitcoins for that...lol !! (4ever late to the party). if u try it it'll yield the exact same hex digit & try count (tho diff time needed). my inputs were just ones i chose justa choose.
What Lola said is why this topic has gone on for 470 pages. In "theory" chess could be a draw, in practice, it's not. Some people are more convinced by what they see, not what someone believes.
It's not that much different than what Elroch basically, in the billions and billions of games ever played not a single one has ever been proven to be a forced draw.
The idea of chess being a forced draw only exists in some peoples minds. It does not exist on the chessboard. That's why people still play, at all levels.
Yep, and we just don't know yet is the most honest answer. I am in that third category. The people in the other categories lean toward being narcissists in my opinion.
2. After I played the correct move [after the diagrammed position]---my opponent a strong master immediately resigned!
3. He resigned because I showed him my move was an absolutely forced win against any defense
That was real proof. The only way to settle this question to everyone's satisfaction is to provide such proof to back up your assertion. As I'm sure you agree that level of proof is impossible to provide the original statement is still only an opinion, not a fact.
TIC-TAC-TOE =Chess. Perfect game is a draw.
mpaetzs it is silly to try and get science from religion. Religion does not have all the knowledge in the world.
Sea captains watching sailing ships disappear over the horizon knew the earth was not flat.
I know you agree with my opinion. I am saying you would agree much more if you knew a lot more evidence.
Also I am not saying that my opinion on this matter can be taken as incontrovertable fact.
Also I never said that mere agreement among the greatest authorities is absolute proof of anything.
What you are doing [not intentionally] is misquoting me. I never have said one piece of evidence is "proof". It is evidence--=it can be very good evidence but it is not proof. I am very careful with my words
There are always people who believe the earth is flat.
During the several millennia BCE when everyone knew that the earth was flat, religious, political and scientific (such as it was) authorities were all pretty much the same people. The astronomers who spent centuries charting the movements of the "heavenly bodies" wanted the knowledge to predict what the deities were planning for individuals or nations. Sea captains did NOT know the world was round--they were afraid to lose sight of land, as they might get lost forever--until some bold Phoenicians realized that Sicily was nearly the same distance west of Tyre while hugging northern coasts as Carthage was when hugging southern coasts.
You admit to not having all the evidence, yet assume that what you do have will convince any logical person, concluding that those who disagree must have lesser knowledge or be intentionally ignoring that which would disprove their opinion.
You repeatedly cite the beliefs of authorities (top GMs and the "strongest chess entities") that chess is a draw as weighty evidence that it is so.
Bottom line: the accumulated evidence very strongly indicates that chess is inherently drawn, but we still lack certainty that our belief is fact.
People would keep playing anyway. Asafa Powell was clearly faster than Tyson Gay, yet lost many times against him. It's an human being dealing with another one after all. We know it's a forced win for white, or a forced draw? Let's play anyway and see what happens.
every time I had more than one girlfriend they found out about each other and I ended up with none.
uhhh, mk. here goes...
Perhaps you are demanding more proof than the level of proof which is acceptable in science? I think at least that is true for many of those who oppose the "chess is a draw" proposition.
Not at all. Science calls a coherent explanation of any phenomenum that seems to successfully cover every detail a "theory". Any theory must be proved, in a way that can be duplicated, to reach the predicted result every time. Even then, science recognizes that future discoveries can (and usually do) poke holes in any theory, no matter how well proved and widely accepted. One example: Newton's laws, accepted for centuries and used in countless practical applications, have been shown to be useless in the study of sub-atomic particles.
mpaetz When you make statements such as "everyone knew the earth was flat" you are very obviously wrong and you should have enough sense to know this?
I have a ton of evidence but no ,mater how much evidence I have it will not mean much to many people. However it means a whole lot to the best chess players in the world. There IS enough evidence for the strongest players in the world.
And I continue to say that if you personally knew a lot more evidence you would likely be certain chess is a draw. But the problem is you do not know even half the evidence given in these forums.
You do mot know how much evidence is needed to be certain chess is a draw as you are not aware of a whole lot of evidence.
I am aware of a whole lot of evidence so it is different for me.
The answer to the question has not been confirmed, and probably will not be confirmed for a very long time. However, it is very unlikely that the answer ends up being False because of the high percentage of draws in games played between top computers. There is no point in continuing to argue. Why does such a simple question have 9414 posts?
mpaetz When you make statements such as "everyone knew the earth was flat" you are very obviously wrong and you should have enough sense to know this?
I have a ton of evidence but no ,mater how much evidence I have it will not mean much to many people. However it means a whole lot to the best chess players in the world. There IS enough evidence for the strongest players in the world.
And I continue to say that if you personally knew a lot more evidence you would likely be certain chess is a draw. But the problem is you do not know even half the evidence given in these forums.
You do mot know how much evidence is needed to be certain chess is a draw as you are not aware of a whole lot of evidence.
I am aware of a whole lot of evidence so it is different for me.
It's so easy to say "you are very obviously wrong" and boast about how you know so much more than others. It is harder to actually produce this purported evidence.
I still await your mention of the ancients who knew the world was round when all religious and temporal authorities, even Pharoahs and other divine personages who spoke with supernatural entities, pronounced it to be flat.
I only mention the fallability of supposed "more informed, more gifted, more respected" sources because you continue to cite top players' views and your own superior body of evidence as proof that your (and their) view must be correct. Human history is replete with examples of the fatuousness of such "authorities".
You claim that all the evidence is here in this forum, but I looked through it on first coming across this thread and found nothing that convinced. Also, I would be interested to see the innumerable perfectly-played draws you repeatedly cite, and learn who has analyzed them.
It seems most likely that you have convinced yourself that you have proved your point and dismiss any disagreement as the product of insufficient information or a lesser mind. Although I agree with your opinion I cannot justify claiming I MUST be correct and disparaging those who disagree.
mpaetz, I can't think of ANY reason (good or bad) to disparage someone who disagrees. Since there is nothing to be gained if chess is proven to be a win OR draw. It will never matter for two people playing.
I personally think it's a forced win for white, but it really doesn't matter if it is or isn't. I could see how a forced win could be thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of moves long. And I could see how it could be a forced draw. Either way, it won't affect the way I play.
Some people are more convinced by what they see, not what someone believes.
right !...chess izza empirical win. and u fonz are tryn2mix empiricism w/ theory !
u should be ashamed of urself.