Well, you've definitely picked the right category (that's about as general a question as I've seen).
Why would black win?
Sort:
Step 1. Get high
Step 2. Post on chess.com forums
Step 3. ? ? ? ?
Step 4. Profit!
Ah, we actually have a diagram now! One which you've posted before, and which (frankly) seems pretty trivial.
Focus on the diagram, the king can not touch the passed pawn, so white is definitely winning with just advancing the pawn and queening first with check and stopping the blacks' pawn.
So maybe it can not express your idea well?
I guess it's sort of the ultimate "Whoever moves wins" position. 
wafflemaster, i try to prove that ppls with high bulletratings don't chew before they swollow.
How much chewing does this one need?
yes, andyClifton, you can say that if white move first, that it will win 100 percent of the time, no matter what support the King give...would the other pieces make any differece to the outcome, or are they just there to "confuse" the game, so that black can come up with a win out of "confusion" that they create?
aAquila, perhaps you want to know why black should win. It seem you know why white would win. What I want to prove is that winning, once analysed, can no longer be distinguished from defeat. Where did I go wrong? Is the position on the board impossible, or perhaps you can come up with a diagram which will clarify why black would win. And if so, would it not be the opposite of my example?
So winning become irrelevant, whoever move first, win!
Hi, maybe I misunderstood your idea (I supposed it as The king need to choose defending the opponent's pawn or supporting his own), sorry.
ok, it seem that you guys helped me to understand it better.
My conclusion is that chaos is what obscure the path of a pawn to unlock its potential.
To unlock your potential in the real world, you need the support of others, so that you can play a better role in society to succeed as a whole.
It is how others support you, and how they see the potential within you. It is not the pawn(you) that win a game. It is your position, and what others make of it.
Society had become selfish, and they think they can claim a victory, by gathering wealth and success. At the end they create poverty, and persist in it untill they feel victorious, but once analysed, they should have seen more potential within others.
They should have analysed their victory, and see that it cannot be distinguished from defeat. The success of our planet, is how well we play the game of life, and if we believe in each other.
Well I found your questions bizarre, not well thought out (even assuming a language barrier), and in general not quite comprehensible. You put quotes around "choice" as if you have a special meaning for the word... but you don't explain what your meaning is.
As for myself, I tend to believe people with high online ratings, and very low live ratings can't chew or swallow.
White wins the pawn race, because promoting the pawn is check, then the queen goes to h1 to block. If the king moves at any point, the queen will simply have an extra move to play Qh1. Again, this is a white win.
fireballz wrote:
ok, it seem that you guys helped me to understand it better.
My conclusion is that chaos is what obscure the path of a pawn to unlock its potential.
To unlock your potential in the real world, you need the support of others, so that you can play a better role in society to succeed as a whole.
It is how others support you, and how they see the potential within you. It is not the pawn(you) that win a game. It is your position, and what others make of it.
Society had become selfish, and they think they can claim a victory, by gathering wealth and success. At the end they create poverty, and persist in it untill they feel victorious, but once analysed, they should have seen more potential within others.
They should have analysed their victory, and see that it cannot be distinguished from defeat. The success of our planet, is how well we play the game of life, and if we believe in each other.
This kind of topic and post would be better received in a philosophy forum I think.
On the one side, there is the darkened opponent, who create confusion, to claim victory. On the other side, is the light who placed his trust, who had given victory!
waffllemaster wrote:
This kind of topic and post would be better received in a philosophy forum I think.
Spare them!
Scottrf wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
This kind of topic and post would be better received in a philosophy forum I think.
Spare them!
Self preservation comes first :p
waffle, waffle, waffle...
bullet in south africa is slower than bullet in usa....
tell me why?
will it explain why online(s-l-o-w-e-r n-e-t-w-o-r-k)rating is higher?
makesensetothinkdeepandhard
They say that when a victory is analysed, it can no longer be distinguished from defeat. Can we prove it?
To simpify matters, i had set up the board with the two most important pieces in chess. (Imaginary pieces)
"The potential of the pawn, and the protection of the King!"
Can a pawn tip the scale, if it have the positional support of its king?
Can we say that all other pieces, are extention of the kings protection, and its support, to a pawn of "choice"?
Can we say that "choice" is what determain outcome? - meaning that the player decide through experience, what potential is locked up within his pawn, and it's link to the position, and protection which the king provide.(ref to above mentioned)
Should white win?