Based on your logic, couldn't a 6 point material advantage be "padding to ensure a draw," as two Knights vs King cannot force a win, but a 5 point material advantage not be padding to ensure a draw as two Knights vs one Pawn is often a forced win for the side with the Knights?
Doesn't 3 pawns vs King also act as a 3 point material advantage, yet the side with the pawns can often secure a win?
"Black, therefore, has a 3 point material padding to ensure a draw." does this not imply forced balance based on materialistic approximation?
No, rather it implies increased capability to ensure a draw. White must play to win.
White's only advantage is a one move iniative.
Black is playing to draw.
Blacks advantage is material sacrifice to drawn endgames.
If you deny that condition as an advantage for black, I simply disagree. I believe that the ability to sacrifice material to known drawn endgames is most definitely an advantage in black's favor.
We just disagree, that is fine. But I believe it's reasonable that...within black's arsenal to accomplish his goal (which is to draw, not to win), black has the ability to purge material in order to force a draw. I fail to see how this isn't an advantage, we see this all the time in high level chess games where one side only needs a draw and that dramatically affects play from white.
The ability to sacrifice material to known drawn endgames is still not "material padding." Sacrificing into an endgame with a 3 point material disadvantage still does not guarantee a draw.
We just disagree, that is fine. But I believe it's reasonable that...within black's arsenal to accomplish his goal (which is to draw, not to win), black has the ability to purge material in order to force a draw. I fail to see how this isn't an advantage, we see this all the time in high level chess games where one side only needs a draw and that dramatically affects play from white.
I don't disagree with your core sentiment, but I just disagree with the logic you used to reach the conclusion. I never explicitly said this wasn't an advantage of Black, but you are trying to generalize all endgames based on material balance. You should have worded your original comment better.
It's worth remembering that any computer evaluation is an expression of the fact that the engine is not sure about the result (with the exception of a subset of evaluations of 0.0, where the reason for the evaluation is that the engine sees a forced draw is definitely going to happen with best play, and evaluations like mate in 5 or getting mated in 5, sometimes written M5 and -M5, or similar). For example an evaluation of 0.7 means the engine neither knows one side can win or one side can draw but gives an indication of practical advantage.
AI engines usually do this better, using scales of probability to either give the expected score (a weighted sum of the probability of a win and half the probability of a draw) or, better, three probabilities for the three possible results.
But all are expressions of uncertainty except in the extreme cases. So anyone who trusts and engine or an AI evaluation that is not one of those extremes has inappropriate confidence not shared by the software.
PROOF OF CHESS IS A DRAW WITH PERFECT PLAY:
Further nuance to my argument:
Since white has advantage, it is therefore impossible for black to win with white playing perfect,
therefore black's AI goal must be not to win, but to draw. This is important because if black plays to win, even with perfect play, I could make a philosophical argument that black could still lose even with perfect play. Perhaps my argument wouldn't hold up, but I could make an argument nontheless. But I'm certain that black should have the explicit goal to draw, and white will have the explicit goal to win.
If a situation arises where the endgame K vs KN is forced, and that's proof of a draw, then situations where endgames have identical material but the win is forced is proof chess is a forced win.
I'll bet someone has already posted a diagram of an endgame with identical material, but one side has a slight advantage, say a forced mate in 37 moves or something. But no human could ever find it.
#9681
"Remind me again of THE DEFINITION OF THE STATISTIC."
++ Take a certain position which is a long win for white.
First you have to prove that this position can result from the initial position by providing a proof game.
Next you have to prove that this position results from perfect play.
If the proof game is no reasonable play, then it is not perfect play.
Take the pgn of the proof game. Analyse it in the analysis tool of this site and look at the accuracy.
If the accuracy is < 50%, then the proof game has no reasonable play and thus it has no perfect play and thus the position is not relevant.
#9682
"Due to perfect play, black knows drawn endgames exist where white has A = 3 (example, king vs king and knight)."
++ There are many 7 men endgames that are safe havens. KNN vs. K (+6), KBh vs. K (+4), KRPP vs. KRP (+1), KRfh vs. KR (+2)...
There are many endgames of >7 men that are known draws: opposite color bishop endgames (+1, +2, +3...), rook endgames with pawns on 1 wing (+1).
There are also many middle games that are draws because of the 3-fold repetition rule, e.g. one side can sacrifice material (e.g. +6) to achieve a perpetual check.
#9696
"all material assessments are irrelevant to actual or specific assessments"
++ No, not really.
"The winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game" - Capablanca
So as a rule and advantage of +1 pawn is enough to convert to a win.
The exceptions are safe havens in the endgame like KNN vs. K a draw with +6, or middle game sacrificial attacks that win even with -9.
#9696
"all material assessments are irrelevant to actual or specific assessments"
++ No, not really.
"The winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game" - Capablanca
So as a rule and advantage of +1 pawn is enough to convert to a win.
"OFTEN" does not mean always.
Empirically, an advantage of considerably more than a pawn (according to a high quality evaluation) is needed for a win to be fairly secure. 100 centipawns does not even provide an expectation of 2/3, if I recall.
The exceptions
"The expections". Absurd. If you think this describes even the relevant part of a tablebase, you are missing about 99.9999% of it.
are safe havens in the endgame like KNN vs. K a draw with +6, or middle game sacrificial attacks that win even with -9.
#9697
"I prefer perfect logic to the subjective impressions of well-known players"
++ We have centuries of accumulated knowledge. A pawn is generally enough to win. If you do not believe me on that, believe Capablanca. Likewise Fischer: "A pawn is a pawn". Since Steinitz top players accept big trouble to win a pawn. That is why gambits are no longer played.
"A position is winning when it's winning and not all + 1.0 positions are winning."
++ Yes, but when is it winning? Almost all + 1.0 are winning. There are safe havens that are known draws, but those are exceptions. An early win of a pawn is enough to win the game. Fischer on the King's Gambit: "It loses by force".
You really need to be prepared to address focussed comments, instead of counting on this second hand and largely irrelevant, subjective opinion to carry any weight. You have been criticised repeatedly for ducking criticism and if you were to use more intelligence, you would understand that you and I are arguing similarly but that you damage the argument with this unfocussed blether. You cannot progress your argument in that manner.
And what exactly does denigrating others' intelligence while making no.referrnce to the original subject contribute?
All you did was criticize tyzxc. Somehow your taking pot shots at others is a "positive contribution" while anyone who questions you is spouting "anarchic drivel" and needs to get in tune with your self-proclaimed superior reasoning.
There is no cabal trying to slander you. It's just that many people are put off by those who incessantly trumpet their "greatness" and lecture us inferior types on how we ought to behave to earn your approval.
I apologize to others seeing this for ranting, but every once in a while I've just seen too much and feel the need to vent.
I imagine I'll soon be getting a lecture on my failings and suggestions on how to improve myself.
I can't count the number of occasions in this thread where you have told me and others that we wouldn't doubt the veracity of the original post if we knew more about the game and we ought to just accept the opinion of you, ponz and top GMs. Let someone else quote a great player and you jump all over them.
You should realize that it isn't easy to have a dialogue with someone who believes his way is the only right way, especially when coupled with repeated claims of intellectual superiority and condescending suggestions on what others need to do to improve themselves.
I know you'll sputter some more about this as you always feel you need to have the last word, but I feel I've gone on for too long so don't expect further replies.
they say chess starts to be drawish as u lessen the time & ⛬ calc area (for both sapiens & inorganics). can we agree to agree on this one ?...cuz ive bought into this.
Go is a game that avoids the issue of draws entirely. Every game is decisive (at least in the Chinese ruleset - Japanese rulesets permit a mutual repetition in multiple ko positions]. Komi (a scoring handicap) is chosen as a non-integer to ensure and a decisive result and its value is chosen so that there is close to equal chances for each side to win (with it being unclear which actually has the advantage with a popular choice of komi).
Go is one of my favorite games EVER to play. and I personally prefer Japanese rules to Chinese. As for the quiz question.....i say true.
i mean stops being drawish...sorry...my bubu opti.
I know that a 3 point material advantage is not enough to convert in any situation but we are assuming perfect play and with perfect play black could certainly sacrifice material to ensure a draw. Starting initiative for white is less than 1 and black has more than enough padding to ensure a draw. I didn't claim that 3 points is a draw in all cases, only as an example of how black can plan ahead and white's 1 move initiative is theoretically not enough to overcome the point spread black innately has to draw the game.
Surely a sacrifice isn't needed in every situation? What is wrong with your original comment is that you mentioned a 3 point material advantage was a padding for ensuring a draw, which is incorrect. I agree that chess is a draw with perfect play, but your logic is simply inconsistent.
"Black, therefore, has a 3 point material padding to ensure a draw." does this not imply forced balance based on materialistic approximation?