No, those arguing that the solution to chess is known have the burden of proof.
I'm not arguing that chess is not a draw, I'm arguing that no such proof exists.
Claims that it does need to be substantiated. A proper proof would suffice....
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Feb 5, 2015
0
#1963
ponz111 wrote:
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
I would suggest that out of billions of chess games that one cannot find even one game which was won or lost without one of the players making a mistake. If anyone thinks they can find such a game please post it here.
Starting with his first comment.
SmyslovFan wrote:
leiph18 wrote:
Ponz, I think 99.99% of people agree with you that chess is probably a draw for all the reasons you mentioned.
Yet this topic is almost 2000 posts long. Weird huh
If you think it's weird that people argue ad nauseum that chess isn't a draw on this site despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you probably haven't visited the numerous threads devoted to scientific truths on this site.
This is just par for the course.
Every GM believes that chess is a draw. They are the authorities on the matter.
It's up to those who want to continue arguing to present a game that is contrary to the accepted wisdom. Rather than keep saying that chess isn't a draw, give even one decisive game that was won without a single mistake being made.
Just one.
I was being a little sarcastic 
I'm one of those who disagrees with ponz. Not because I think chess isn't a draw with best play, but I (and many others) take issue with how he uses words like evidence, proof, and knowledge.
If all he'd say is "It's reasonable to assume chess is a draw for x, y, and z reasons" then this topic would have been maybe 2 pages long instead of 100 (and counting).
Spot on.
Feb 5, 2015
0
#1967
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
SmyslovFan wrote:
No, you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Have fun.
I'm not arguing for the sake of argument, I'm clarifying sloppy use of language and statements of certainty that cannot, in fact, be substantiated.
Feb 5, 2015
0
#1969
Ponz is sometimes careless with his word choice. So to punish him, you drag this out for 2000 posts without actually disagreeing with him?
I am using "proof" as 99.999% likelihood in that post, not 100% likelihood.
"proof" can have two meanings. 100% proven or proven to someone's satisfication.
I have always said chess is not "solved" and never will be "solved"
SmyslovFan wrote:
No, you're just arguing for the sake of argument. Have fun.
I think it sort of starts out like that. Kind of saying, look, we probably agree, but you're using these words incorrectly.
But then when they stubbornly, day after day, disagree, and repeat the errors... ponz is the one dragging it out, not grobe.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
It's the wrong question. No such game can be provided of course, until chess is solved.
Also his "billions" of games statement means nothing in terms of proof.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
ponz111 wrote:
"proof" can have two meanings.
Prove it.
Feb 5, 2015
0
#1975
Again, Ponz' first statement was one of belief. He didn't state that it was proven beyond doubt. Shall we parse every little thing that you said and nitpick every little flaw you make?
You may have fun doing that to others, I don't.
TheGrobe you are just trolling now.
Feb 5, 2015
0
#1977
TheGrobe wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
You don't really understand what "circular line of reasoning" is apparently.
He is asking for EVIDENCE that chess is not a draw. After hundreds of millions of games, SOME evidence should have turned up by now.
A lack of evidence after 100s of millions of games isn't final proof, but it's a strong suggestion that the truth lies in the other direction.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Again, Ponz' first statement was one of belief. He didn't state that it was proven beyond doubt. Shall we parse every little thing that you said and nitpick every little flaw you make?
You may have fun doing that to others, I don't.
I assume that's part of the fun for grobe, i.e. try to find a flaw in what he says. He seems to choose his words carefully.
Not that you don't have a point.
Feb 5, 2015
0
#1979
eoJ1 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
How would you know whether it was a mistake or not? A bit of a circular argument there.
A strong enough player, with the help of a strong chess engine would know. Not only that, he could point out the mistake.
A chess engine that's analysed anywhere near all 10^123 possible games? You got a link to one?
I'd be happy with 10^43 positions.
SmyslovFan wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ponz asked for those arguing against the premise that chess is a draw to provide even one example.
So far, over 2000 posts have been made, and not a single decisive game without errors has been produced.
Which sets up a completely circular line of reasoning when your definition of a mistake is a move that results in one side or the other losing....
You don't really understand what "circular line of reasoning" is apparently.
He is asking for EVIDENCE that chess is not a draw. After hundreds of millions of games, SOME evidence should have turned up by now.
A lack of evidence after 100s of millions of games isn't final proof, but it's a strong suggestion that the truth lies in the other direction.
I don't understand why 100 million games is proof of anything. It's like saying mathematicians have tried to solve a problem for 100 years, so I can declare it's unsolvable. I mean, it's just meaningless. Humans aren't perfect, and chess is so complex, that no number of games means anything.
He may be asking for evidence, but how can you give evidence before chess is solved? You can give reasonable assumptions (I made a few clever ones myself a few pages back, why chess is a draw) but that's it.
But ok, if we choose to accept we don't like each other's phrasing, then one side can stop the topic. Grobe has said though that he doesn't want new members to read the phrasing ponz uses and get the wrong idea. Maybe that's why he was unwilling to stop for 100 pages.
Don't expect to see Grobe respond though, ponz apparently blocked him.
Ponz made an overstatement. He has repeatedly said that there isn't final proof. You nitpick everyone else's comments, read the entirety of Ponz's statements and you will see that you are overreaching.