my error....quote #197 from "why do more guys join chess club then women?" post.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
...sorry to disrupt everyone....please continue....I'm waiting and reading....! (Hi Lou !)
not quite indiana, but pick another spot and i'll tell you if you're getting warmer....
Yekatrinas wrote:
Percentages suggest that something can be measured (with measures like weight, length, price). Measures that keep their validity (to all of us) under all related situations. We do not have such measures like that yet to the question about a chance chess being a draw or not. Better not to use '%'.
Although there is no clear way of measuring percentages when we're making a judgment, it doesn't mean percentages can't relate to our beliefs, just that the number is estimated by subjective feeling. So, yes, it's approximate, but it's much better than nothing -- I think we have some idea what most percentages "feel" like :)
Think of it this way: if there was money on the line and you had to avoid correctly calling two coin flips in a row (3 in 4 chance I believe), or guess correctly whether chess is a draw, win for white, or win for black, which one would you rather do/feel safer doing? (let's assume that a person with a 32 tablebase would be able to confirm or falsify your guess) If you prefer guessing that chess is a draw, then that would translate to a greater than 75% belief that it's a draw. If not then you are less than 75% confident.
For the record I would rather guess the outcome of chess than call the coin flips :)
TetsuoShima wrote:
ponz i might be guilty of false dichotomy but tell me how can black force anything being second???
Kind of cute how you keep saying we have "zero facts" and just now you say that black can't force anything being second yet you are using "zero facts."
See Tetsuo, even for you, your intuition, deep in your unconscious, wants to be recognized -- give him some love :)
Hey. I felt that love. Where is this thread heading now? 
Hopefully this thread will die out and in ten years there will be so many draws at the top levels that my hypothesis will look even better than it does now.
People will say: You know that ponz [RIP] seems to have been right, after all, as his predictions have come true..
And Tetsuo's grandson will say it was just a lucky guess.
From a Classical Rhetorical perspective, (not a Scientism perspective) the quotation given below is a variation of what @Ponz111 has asserted in this thread -- Regarding,
"Levels of certainty...
In its last report in 2007, the IPCC stated that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" - in other words, humans burning fossil fuels." *[BBC, World News webpage, September 23, 2013]
Stated another way -- and tweaking the language that @Ponz11 used -- there's a warranted belief that chess is a draw, and evidence to date points to that likelihood.
Just like the IPCC quotation above, @Ponz11's "warranted belief" is a practical (non theoretical) statement for the busy policymaker.
Nothing more, nothing less. And it's based on what we know to date.
Conversely, we could --
Try programming Houdini (or use two super strong Centaurs) to delibrately seek a draw or force a win (from both sides of the board), and let them work on this problem indefinitely at CC time controls.
And that's as close as we will get to a reasonable test of the proposition advanced by this thread.
Funny Thing Now -- if you stare at the charts in the BBC article quoted above, you can intuitively grasp why people keep arguing about climate, too. Because whoever did those trend charts for the web article didn't realize that (for the lay person) they don't show a clear trend, only up/down cycles. See for yourselves --
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504
I will agree with the characterization given by zborg.
If {1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 draw agreed} is a "perfect game", then is {1.e4 e5 draw agreed} also a "perfect game"? If so, then what about {1.draw agreed}?
Sep 23, 2013
0
#1255
ponz111 wrote:
Hopefully this thread will die out and in ten years there will be so many draws at the top levels that my hypothesis will look even better than it does now.
People will say: You know that ponz [RIP] seems to have been right, after all, as his predictions have come true..
and now you are asserting that you are 100% sure that chess is a draw even though you don't claim so in the begenning of the thread.
quadriple, again you are using a strawman argument. By misquoting me and then knocking down the misquote.
Never in this whole thread have I said I am 100% sure that chess is a draw.
As far as games agreed to be a draw after just a few moves. We have decided to table that as it just depends on definitions. So, I not longer claim that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 is a perfect game. It may be but I make no claim.
Sep 23, 2013
0
#1258
ponz111 wrote:
quadriple, again you are using a strawman argument. By misquoting me and then knocking down the misquote.
Never in this whole thread have I said I am 100% sure that chess is a draw.
you haven't.
jeez
what you said IMPLIED that because of the word 'will'.
emphasis on the word IMPLIED now.
You didn't say that directly and I didn't knock down your "strawman" yet.
I only pointed out that what you said IMPLIED you knew chess was a draw.
ponz111 a écrit :
As far as games agreed to be a draw after just a few moves. We have decided to table that as it just depends on definitions. So, I not longer claim that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 is a perfect game. It may be but I make no claim.
I may be misreading you. But I think it is more than a matter of definitions. If you do not agree, I would like to see the definition under which {1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 draw agreed} is a perfect game and {1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 black resigns} is not. Once again the answer to this question is equivalent to the knowledge of a solution to chess.
If a "perfect game" is one which neither side made an error which would change the result of a game. Then under that definition 1. e4 e5 draw agreed would be a perfect game. Some do not like that definition and say a number of moves must be played.
It is kind of a side issue as we are discussing if chess played perfect, no matter how many moves, is a draw?
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Black resigns is might not be considered a perfect game as the act of resigning would be an error. Or you could say it was a perfect game for White only as White did not make an error.
I really think this is a side issue to the central question. So I take no stand on this anymore.
....you make me giggle mr. bean !
your gigling makes me .... never mind....