True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

I didn't know the number 40 but I wasn't commenting o the number of your posts.  Do you think any of them added anything to the discussion or said anything interesting or intelligent?  Please point it out.

For reference, I think there were many intelligent and thoughtful posts on this thread.

people trying to solve chess is like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaLrN4JjmTU are minds use 10% of its potentol when wee will use 100%

answer this but

krammnik and adams proved in a game that this will end in a draw

Actually, while a few on this forum cannot tell if such moves as 1. d4  or 1. e4 or 1.c4 are a mistake or not. Most strong players know that these moves are not a mistake.  If you get bogged down in "Oh, I cannot tell if 1. e4 is a mistake?" Then, you simply do not have enough chess understanding to know 1. e4 is not a mistake.

If someone cannot be convinced that 1. e4 is not a mistake there is not much that anyone can say chesswise to convince him of other things related to chess.

There are some who completely discount what has been learned about chess in the last few hundred years.  Trying to convince them of anything related to chess is almost impossible.

That completely misses the point.  1.e4 is probably not a mistake (despite what Hans Berliner thinks) but Socrates says "How do you know it's not?".  Your answer would make Socrates contemptuous.

You didn't even present an argument but some kind of generic ad hominem so there is not much to respond to there.  Try again.

I do not have to convince strong players that certain opening moves are not a mistake and do not need to write a paper on this subject. The strong players already know certain opening moves are not a mistake. 

You keep repeating the world "mistake" and its definition "a move that doesn't change the outcome of the game". Unfortunately, I think you still haven't understood the meaning of the definition.

If 1.e4 is not a mistake, then the position before 1.e4 (the initial position) and the position after it are of the same nature. That is, if chess is a draw (i.e. the initial position is a draw), the position after e4 is a draw. Similarily, if chess is a win and e4 is not a mistake, the position after e4 is a win as well.

Now, given that nobody knows the outcome of the initial position, and that nobody knows the outcome of the position reached after 1.e4, I would like you to convince that you know they are the same.

Proving that 1.e4 is not a mistake is probably as hard as solving chess. I don't care that GM use it, and I'll continue playing it every game I play, because I can't play perfect anyway and GMs can't play perfect either. You should understand that we are not talking about being very good at chess, or the best human in the world. Perfect play is immensely harder than this, and is very likely out of human's reach. Engines probably won't be able to play perfect for a long amount of time (in your version, the sun explodes before it happens).

The second part of the post is not that important. What is very important to understand is that we do not know if 1.e4 is perfect. Practically speaking, it's a sound move, but in terms of game theory (which is the only thing that matters when talking about perfect play) we have no clue.

The "I am right because other people not here would surely agree with me" is among the lamest possible arguments (actually it isn't even an argument - it's just nothing).  In fact, I don't even think that well-educated players would agree with you.   A strong player like Botvinnik (reasonably well-schooled in mathematics) would surely agree with Trochenblais and say something like "Eh..I play e4 because I like the practical  chances in the game following e4 not because of any belief that it is a perfect move". 

Okay.

Yeah, sure.  The reason I think you haven't said anything intelligent is because you are a woman.  Or it could be that you think having a university degree makes you intelligent.  I think that is seriously laughable.

True

Just one and I would bet my life against a nickel you don't have a Ph.D.

Not attacking or defending anyone, but two PhD's, wow that sounds really expensive!  College is more about status than intelligence anyway, at least here in America.  Any college worth a damn charges over $900 per class, and some classes won't even be relevant to your area of expertise.  As interesting and important as history is if I wanted to learn it I'd just Google it. 

Science and math should be mandatory for all though even liberal art majors since those fields are grounded in objectivity and teach effective thinking by association.  We can ascertain that something didn't happen despite not being there ourselves because of the ludicrous logistics and contradictions with the laws of nature. 

I'm thinking of the Noah's Ark story of course with polar bears and kangaroos implictly sharing an environment six inches above Mt.Everest on a boat smaller than the Tatanic somehow carrying more animals than even the San Diego zoo is capable, but modern theological advancements understand that the story is indisputably a metaphor and not real (i.e., myth history, as the Jewish Lifecycle Book calls it). 

Tron  I understand that if 1. e4 is not a mistake then the position before [the initial position] is also of the same nature.  i.e. if the intial position is a draw and 1. e4 is not a mistake then both the initial position and 1. e4 lead to a draw.

Then you say nobody knows what the outcome would be reached after 1.e4  That part of what you are saying is ambigous "Nobody knows"  If you mean nobody has a 100% math proof that 1. e4 leads to a certain result you are correct.  But if you mean that there is no evidence what 1. e4 leads to then you are incorrect. There is a ton of evidence that 1. e4 leads to a draw. We cannot be certain 100% of anything in life.  We have to go with the probabilites.  Most strong players say they know chess is a draw when really they are probably only about 99% certain.  

So when the question is asked "Is chess a draw with best play>" Someone with a very good knowledge of chess can say "yes" even though there is no math proof that he is correct.

The question is not "Can it be proven that chess is a draw" That question is on another forum.

To give an anology in the past some players did not know checkers was a draw. However virtually all the strongest players knew checkers was a draw.

How did they know?  One reason was between top players there was draw after draw played.  Finally checkers was math solved and now most everyone knows checkers is a draw.

Someone can be 99% sure of something even though it is not math solved. 

ponz111 wrote:

To give an anology in the past some players did not know checkers was a draw. However virtually all the strongest players knew checkers was a draw.

How did they know?  One reason was between top players there was draw after draw played.  Finally checkers was math solved and now most everyone knows checkers is a draw.

Someone can be 99% sure of something even though it is not math solved. 

But sure doesnt mean correct and in Chess we cant know.

As i Say the best Doktors in europe thought holes in teeth are created, by worms living in teeth. They were 100 %

If u had farmers hundreds of years ago, thes probab

Have Said that Despotismus is the only for of government

chiaroscuro62 you seem to like to tell people that they are liars. If she says she has two PHDs then she has two PHDs.  it is disruptive doing what you are doing and I am asking you to stop. 

Not too Long ago they were sure chinese medicine was all bull. But they were wrong, for example chinese found out that Backpain could be an indication for heart problem. Later they found Out they were right.

Now chinese medicin is accepted.

I'm a grandmaster.  Do you know if that is true?  (of course you do).  Anyway, I didn't call her anything.  I proposed a bet.

Just for reference, there are people in the world with 2 Ph.D.'s (a few with even more).  They are oddities in academia and there is always some weird story that goes with it.  And they speak nothing at all like Yekatrinas.  If you want to falsely tell people on the internet you are very educated you don't tell them you have two Ph.D.'s.  You tell them you have one. 

@Scorpion - Ph.D.'s aren't expensive for most people who get them at real schools.  I had fellowship support for 3 years which paid all my expenses including living expenses.  Then I had a research assistantship funded by NSF that paid me actually slightly more for my final 2 years and paid for dissertation credits.  (I had a nice time in my 5 years there - even played chess sometimes).  Nobody in my department earning a Ph.D. paid any out of pocket money to be there unless things were going very badly for them and pulling their support was another way of telling them it was time to call it a day and do something different.

Well just Out of curiousity i have met IMs who said the title means nothing