A lot depends on the definition of "know". To me i cannot "know" anything 100% as it could be that i am just a figment of imagination in some being's mind.
So, to me "know" is to be 99.99% sure and this does not require the 100% sure one might get if chess is ever solved.
If you play chess at a high level for decades--you learn a lot about chess and you "know" a lot about chess.
Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is that out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake. So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.
and tens of thousands of games have been analyzed and there has been found to be a lot of leeway before a game turns away from a draw.
So we’re able to find some mistakes, ergo perfect games have been played?
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
A lot depends on the definition of "know". To me i cannot "know" anything 100% as it could be that i am just a figment of imagination in some being's mind.
So, to me "know" is to be 99.99% sure and this does not require the 100% sure one might get if chess is ever solved.
If you play chess at a high level for decades--you learn a lot about chess and you "know" a lot about chess.
I’m not questioning that you think highly of yourself. But that still isn’t evidence.
Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is that out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake. So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.
and tens of thousands of games have been analyzed and there has been found to be a lot of leeway before a game turns away from a draw.
So we’re able to find some mistakes, ergo perfect games have been played? i have no idea what this sentence means? You might wish to reword it?
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. there is no nonsequitur there but of course i do not know what your one sentence means?
I’m not questioning that you think highly of yourself. But that still isn’t evidence.
It's not conclusive evidence anyway.
---
One piece of evidence is the drawing margin for endgames. In most endgames (if everything else is equal) a pawn isn't enough to win. We've known this for a long time, but these days it's for sure because of EGTBs.
So logically, to turn the position from a draw to a loss you have to blunder even worse than that. If neither player is putting their opponent under pressure (like the game I posted) then it's reasonable to assume a perfect game could be played even by relatively weak players.
Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is that out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake. So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.
and tens of thousands of games have been analyzed and there has been found to be a lot of leeway before a game turns away from a draw.
So we’re able to find some mistakes, ergo perfect games have been played? i have no idea what this sentence means? You might wish to reword it?
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. there is no nonsequitur there but of course i do not know what your one sentence means?
Okay let me explain.
”Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is”
Great! Been waiting for some evidence.
“out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake.”
This in no way shape or form indicates perfect games have been played.
“So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.”
Ditto.
I’m not questioning that you think highly of yourself. But that still isn’t evidence.
It's not conclusive evidence anyway.
---
One piece of evidence is the drawing margin for endgames. In most endgames (if everything else is equal) a pawn isn't enough to win. We've known this for a long time, but these days it's for sure because of EGTBs.
So logically, to turn the position from a draw to a loss you have to blunder even worse than that. If neither player is putting their opponent under pressure (like the game I posted) then it's reasonable to assume a perfect game could be played even by relatively weak players.
That’s evidence the perfect chest is likely a draw, which I never disputed.
It's evidence for a perfect game when I say neither player puts their opponent under pressure.
A lot depends on the definition of "know". To me i cannot "know" anything 100% as it could be that i am just a figment of imagination in some being's mind.
So, to me "know" is to be 99.99% sure and this does not require the 100% sure one might get if chess is ever solved.
If you play chess at a high level for decades--you learn a lot about chess and you "know" a lot about chess.
I’m not questioning that you think highly of yourself. But that still isn’t evidence.
The evidence is not me thinking highly of myself. The evidence is my knowledge of chess. Of course this is only a small piece of all the evidence i have.
It's evidence for a perfect game when I say neither player puts their opponent under pressure.
I totally disagree. Players, engines, whatever can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. It only means neither side was able to initiate perceived threats.
A lot depends on the definition of "know". To me i cannot "know" anything 100% as it could be that i am just a figment of imagination in some being's mind.
So, to me "know" is to be 99.99% sure and this does not require the 100% sure one might get if chess is ever solved.
If you play chess at a high level for decades--you learn a lot about chess and you "know" a lot about chess.
I’m not questioning that you think highly of yourself. But that still isn’t evidence.
The evidence is not me thinking highly of myself. The evidence is my knowledge of chess. Of course this is only a small piece of all the evidence i have.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is guilty. The evidence is my knowledge of the law.”
Cool story, Bro. 👍
Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is that out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake. So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.
and tens of thousands of games have been analyzed and there has been found to be a lot of leeway before a game turns away from a draw.
So we’re able to find some mistakes, ergo perfect games have been played? i have no idea what this sentence means? You might wish to reword it?
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. there is no nonsequitur there but of course i do not know what your one sentence means?
Okay let me explain.
”Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is” This is not even a complete sentence so i still do not know what it means? Are you asking for evidence? [this is my guess]
Great! Been waiting for some evidence.
“out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake.”
This in no way shape or form indicates perfect games have been played. it is evidence that the game of chess is a draw and that is a preliminary to prove that some perfect games have been played.
“So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.” actually the fact that after billions of games have been played--noone is even able to find one game where there was a win or loss without a mistake being made -- is very good evidence that chess is a draw when played with no mistakes.
Ditto.
By the way in the other forum the consensus was finally [after a bunch of postings by me] that the game of chess is a draw.
Even USArmy agrees this is very likely true.
It's evidence for a perfect game when I say neither player puts their opponent under pressure.
I totally disagree. Players, engines, whatever can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. It only means neither side was able to initiate perceived threats.
1. The game starts as a draw
2. The position is symmetrical (if we think of advantages as differences then this is meaningful)
3. The position is solid (in the starting position almost all pieces are protected at least once)
4. Position is disorganized (pieces aren't coordinated, and they take multiple moves to coordinate)
Therefore if the players play passively, it will easily remain a draw throughout, even if this was not their intention.
Therefore this is evidence for the notion that a perfect game has been played.
“actually the fact that after billions of games have been played--noone is even able to find one game where there was a win or loss without a mistake being made ”
That’s evidence perfect chess is likely a draw. It’s NOT evidence perfect games have been played.
”Perfect chess is likely a draw; therefore perfect games have been played” does not at all follow.
Whether or not perfect games end in a draw or a win for white has NO brearing on whether or not perfect lines have been played.
It's evidence for a perfect game when I say neither player puts their opponent under pressure.
I totally disagree. Players, engines, whatever can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. It only means neither side was able to initiate perceived threats.
Of course players can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. But in the particular game shown--this did not happen.
How do i know? My own analysis of the game. I would bet a strong chess engine would analyze the game the same way...i e there was no point in that game where the theoretical result was anything but a draw...
It's evidence for a perfect game when I say neither player puts their opponent under pressure.
I totally disagree. Players, engines, whatever can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. It only means neither side was able to initiate perceived threats.
1. The game starts as a draw
2. The position is symmetrical (if we think of advantages as differences then this is meaningful)
3. The position is solid (in the starting position almost all pieces are protected at least once)
4. Position is disorganized (pieces aren't coordinated, and they take multiple moves to coordinate)
Therefore if the players play passively, it will easily remain a draw throughout, even if this was not their intention.
Therefore this is evidence for the notion that a perfect game has been played.
HOW??
Oh, I guess I need to add that it takes more than a pawn's advantage to win most endgames and that players blunder in proportion to the complexity of a position, and inversely proportional to their skill, and that human players of high human-relative skill blunder rarely even in normal position.
So if skilled players play passively, then it's not unlikely to be perfect.
If there are many thousands of instances where skilled players have played passively, then it's likely a perfect game has been played.
It's evidence for a perfect game when I say neither player puts their opponent under pressure.
I totally disagree. Players, engines, whatever can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. It only means neither side was able to initiate perceived threats.
Of course players can completely miss opportunities without ever knowing it happened. But in the particular game shown--this did not happen.
How do i know? My own analysis of the game. I would bet a strong chess engine would analyze the game the same way...i e there was no point in that game where the theoretical result was anything but a draw...
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is guilty. I know this from my own analysis of the incident.”
Cool story, bro 👍
Another piece of evidence that perfect games have been played is that out of billions of games played--noone can show even 1 game played where someone won without his opponent making a mistake. So the game of chess is rather obviously a draw.
and tens of thousands of games have been analyzed and there has been found to be a lot of leeway before a game turns away from a draw.