thanks irontiger but then what to do with many posts similar that I do not have an education--it was somewhat relevant as those kind of posts are used to discredit.
There was one mention of my rating as a defense re I was stupid but I guess you are right and I have to let it go.
In any event think I will try your advice. thank you!
The question has been asked before but I haven't seen the OP:s approach to it before. Must say I like it. Thanks for all the ideas, OP! And also don't mind the obvious instigators. There are plenty of members who seem to see it a job to divert forum threads from the original post. Just follow irontiger's advice, that was some good stuff.
Well, the post of bigpoison was visually very impressive. Too impressive to neglect. When I saw it, I thought you had to answer, because it has too much presence. It really surprised me to get this message from someone like bigpoison. He is around here for a long time. How can it that he does not know your chess strength?
Anyhow, the shovel can be found in the shed, but it might be hard to get because of the lawn mover and other stuff. Please take care not to fall in the hole you are going to dig. :-)
I am or was in a no win situation. What to do if I am personally attacked unfairly with evidence which might look like I am guilty but the truth is I did not lie.
1. I can defend myself and show statements disparaging me are not true.
If I do so I am accused of spamming and going off subject.
2. Or I could just not respond and then it will be assumed I did what I was accused of...
Is there a third alternative? [this happens fairly often so please someone give a third alternative that makes sense]
I agree entirely with you. It happened to many of us, also me: Someone says something very bad about you, you defend yourself politely, the other does not let go, or even adds another lie or insulkt, you answer... The crowd is amused and watches. Whatever you do, is wrong ...
It is NOT your fault!! It is the guilt of the troll (who enjoys his anonymity) and of the crowd that has no solidarity.
jadarite, some months ago I contacted ICCF International Correspondence Chess Federation US to see if I still "have" a rating of 2538 and was told, yes, you do, but it is inactive.
The rating as given by bigpoison was from a completely different venue, a rating about 40 years in the past in a venue I stopped playing in because I wanted to play in a stronger venue.
So, when big poison was indicating I was lieing, I had to respond.
I have admitted that my current playing strength has deteriorated greatly in the past few months but I still have that ICCF rating of 2538 -they did not take it away...
To give an anology GM Bisguier is a older gentleman and is playing a little under 2200 strength but he is still as grandmaster.
Sorry, but I DO have an ICCF correspondence rating of 2538. This is different than my over the board current playing strength. The fact that my over the board current rating strength has deteriorated does not take away my current ICCF correspondence rating.
There is a difference between current playing strength in over the board chess and a current rating in a correspondence venue.
Yes, there was the sarcastic question "Have I played a game of chess?"
and I answered [also somewhat sarcasticly] I have a rating over 2500.
My answer while sarcastic, was also true.
The truth is I still have a rating over 2500. If someone wants to say I am lying then I will defend myself.
When someone essentially calls me a liar, I will defend. If I mention I have a rating of 2500 or over 2500 in response to a statement regarding my chess playing ability--if someone wants to challenge that--best NOT to assume I am lying.
The problem was not my sarcastic [but true] statement in response to another sarcastic statement. The problem was if someone thinks I am lying best to contact me rather then to try to prove I am a liar. In other words, be careful before you accuse someone of lying.
Can you stop being self-righteous, jadarite ?
Ok someone challenged me on my statement. But if you look at the post it was not just a challenge. That person assumed I was lying.
In any event please let us stop posting on this side subject?
My answer is that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
Can I prove this 100%? The answer is "no"
Can, i give evidence of why I think chess is a draw. Yes, and I alreay have.
Could I be wrong that chess is a draw with best play by both sides?
Yes, I could be wrong. What are chances I am wrong? About one in 1000!
Ok someone challenged me on my statement. But if you look at the post it was not just a challenge. That person assumed I was lying.
In any event please let us stop posting on this side subject?
My answer is that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
Can I prove this 100%? The answer is "no"
Can, i give evidence of why I think chess is a draw. Yes, and I alreay have.
Could I be wrong that chess is a draw with best play by both sides?
Yes, I could be wrong. What are chances I am wrong? About one in 1000!
sorry but what evidence??
That millions of games have already been played??
That is hardly evidence
handicapped games are totally different from normal ones.
for example white can play 1.f3 and 2.g4 if black is has a queen handicap and still win.
The number of decent variations that can be played goes up more than exponentially.
There might be moves that we haven't found out that guarentee a 100% winning chance against moves like 1.e4.
We cannot predict the outcome of perfect play because we just don't know what it is yet or how much better it is than regular play.
next time name the person you are quoting from.
I do not believe there are any games where one side or the other won with out the losing side making a mistake. This goes a long way towards the idea chess is a draw with perfect play by both sides.
I made the challenge to just find one such game out of billions and so far nobody has found such a game.
@ jardite
Something like "quadriple said" would be enough because I am pretty sure "that is hardly evicence" must have been posted in this thread like a bajillion times.
My statement does not imply that normal games are not handicapped.
They "might" be handicapped depending on outcome of perfect play.
handicapped games on the other hand give a clear and easily winning advantage to the other side.
Handicaps normal games (if present) need near precise movement to convert to a win or mistakes from opponent.
I can also say have a pawn handicap and still win a game provided my opponents game is bad enough.
jardite, on page SEVEN there is only some citation (who said so btw ? You did not indicate, and I do not want to search) you mock about. That's all.
Now you mock about me because I told you to come to the point and not mock others (Ponz). Having an elo that has this or that period of validity is REALLY not something we should discuss. But it goes on and on. I think you and me (95 percent of people on chess.com) are far below the chess capability of Ponz, with his (once or longer or whatever time period) rating of over 2500.
To ask for a little respect for his opinion about solvability of the chess problem is not too much.
-------------------------------------
I would like to say that 'overwhelming evidence' (that chess is a draw) can be (in Math terms) rephrased as 'statistical evidence'.
I would like to say that 'overwhelming evidence' (that chess is a draw) can be (in Math terms) rephrased as 'statistical evidence'.
There is absolutely no evidence that chess is a draw with perfect play.
If 2 players with rating of say 100 played each other and drew would that imply that it was perfect chess??
No
But yet you say it is when Grand masters do it is perfect play.( I am assuming you meant to say there is overwhelming evidence that chess is a draw with perfect play hence there is statastical evidence)
Also there is a problem with replacing overwhelming evidence with statastical evidence.
For example
The evidence that anand is better than me is overwhelming but there is no statastical evidence as we haven't played each other yet.
Also statastical evidence is probably not tru unless it is rigged.
If you flip a coin 100 times and it falls head 90 times that is not evidence that it is most likely going to be heads the next time.The odds are still 50-50 unless the coin is rigged to fall heads and unless you know wether it is rigged or not 50-50 is your best bet.
Same way unless we know wether perfect play is better for black or white we can not make predictions based on statistics since it can be a mere co incedence.
I do not believe there are any games where one side or the other won with out the losing side making a mistake. This goes a long way towards the idea chess is a draw with perfect play by both sides.
I made the challenge to just find one such game out of billions and so far nobody has found such a game.
Why would someone look at billions of games when you know that it is possible non of the games played by humans till now were perfect.Even the draws.The evidence for the fact that we won't know perfect play in chess till it is solved is overwhelming.
shockinn
I am not asking anone to look at billions of games.
Please consider--if the were a game like this it would stand out above all other games and the grandmasters and supergrandmasters would all be somewhat proven to be wrong. So far, after hundreds of years and millions of people playing chess--there is no such game!
Also, grandmasters and super grandmasters can look at a game and know if it is a game without any mistake--i.e. a perfect game. The best chess engines can also do this.
Mistakes in chess are easily noted and found by the very best playerss and the very best chess engines.
I know many do not believe this but the more proficient you are in chess the more likely you will understand and believe this.
Damn, this thread is still going on? Really, who cares? If you wanna search for 'truth' then do it on something that will benefit mankind. Oh, and like you said ponz111, the sun will explode before we develope a 32 piece mathematical database that will prove that chess is a draw... So, seeing as there is no actual proof, there is no reason for your assumption. You'd be better off argueing whether or not there is a G-d.
It has probably already been posted but for anyone still interested in this thread it's worth mentioning that there is a decent wikipedia page about this very subject, called, first move advantage:
Ponz: "Please consider--if the were a game like this it would stand out above all other games?"
Why? What would it look like? What would make it look special? What differentiates the perfect win from any win without obvious blunder? I suspect the perfect game from 1.e4 has been played. It happened to be a draw, and folks said, "oh that line draws" and went looking for other things. Indeed perhaps there have been perfect games played down many lines -- the issue is _proving it_, rigorously knowing that a game is unimproveable. That appears beyond the reach of technology for the foreseeable future.
Is there a third alternative? [this happens fairly often so please someone give a third alternative that makes sense]
In that particular case, it was :
1- Don't talk about your rating.
2-When faced with attacks about it, answer "what does this have to do with the thread ? How is my rating relevant ?" and move on.