The stronger the chess player--the more likely that player will believe that chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake.
The stronger the chess player--the more likely he/she will think that the current chess knowledge is useful. [and that chess player uses his/her chess knowledge to do well in his games]
Very few people are free from beliefs, and ‘strong chess players’ are no exception. They believe in general, in life, they hold beliefs in many directions, usually based on ‘ if the majority see it, it must be true.WOW! you are very wrong in this statement! One reason strong players are so strong is that they do NOT blindly follow authority.
‘ So they jump on the bandwagon of belief , while blind as bats. The truth is just the opposite of what you are saying.
It is irrelevant that then they try to convince themselves and others that there are rational reasons for that belief to be something true. If you mean "strong play" for "belief" their results vindicate their beliefs as to how to play chess.
And they usually succeed, at in least in fooling themselves into believing it’s more than a belief: a belief trying to replace another belief! You apparently do not know very many chess masters or chess grandmasters or maybe you would not make these statements which are contrary to reality?
Yet believing in a non-fact doesn’t make it into a fact.’ of course--who ever said something different?
Nobody cares who holds what beliefs. The pristine fact remains that nobody knows what the result of a perfect game is. This is not true. I know what the result of a perfect game is. [just because you do not know something does not mean it cannot be known]
You misunderstand. GMs, just like scientists, even the best of them, in daily life, which means outside the game of chess ( or science, respectively), hold a lot of beliefs. You are simply blind to how your brain works, in daily life, and not knowing yourself, you don’t know anybody else. i hold a lot of beliefs, I believe earth is teeming with life. I believe My son is in school right now.
If you could look in a metaphorical mirror, you would see how your brain is moving from one belief to another, it only moves from one belief to another if some facts come out to show me i am wrong. This happens but not very often at all.
not in chess, In chess sometimes i change my mind--based on facts or new information--but sometimes.
but in your daily activities. From one insecurity to another. And if you were able to observe yourself in such a manner you could also see that the human mind in general functions like this, what? being insecure?
from one belief to another, from one speculation to another. there can be a difference between "belief" and "speculation" "beliefs" [to me] require a lot of facts or a lot of evidence.
GM’s, like any idiot out there, are not above this pattern. In their petty lives, they are full of beliefs. We are all full of beliefs. This does not mean the beliefs are untrue. GM's tend to believe based on facts and evidence--much more so than the average person.
The reason I brought it up before was to show you that the same pattern of beliefs from their everyday lives is transferred to the game of chess: you just contradited what you wrote above ["not in chess"]
after all it is the same brain, they don’t have a spare one. actually they have their own brain and everybody's brains are different--expecially in how they acquire beliefs.
Which is why they might believe that a perfect game is a draw. NO WAY! grandmasters do not think that way! The game of chess requires a whole lot of logic. To play well requires logic. To play super well requires even better logic.
It’s what the brain does, moving from one non-fact to another, from one assumption to another, not my brain -- my beliefs are based on facts and evidence.
which is why suffering of man continues. The human mind avoids the facts per se, in this psychological field of life. [ this is dt accidently changed the color of your sentence--but i do not believe all minds are like that--some of us are skeptics [i am] and very much avoid following authority.
What is the main assumption at the core of it all? If I asked you ‘ who are you?’, what would you answer? I would give facts about myself to answer that question.
THAT is the root of all assumptions, which acts like a virus that destroys a computer. What is the root of all assumptions? With me my assumptions come from facts and evidence.
Now, aside from childishly repeating that a perfect game is a draw, you haven’t produced a single shred of logical evidence in arriving at that crooked conclusion. Not a single one. Actually i have produced a ton of evidence and other posters have also produced evidence. You have a confirmation bias and you reject all the evidence that does not fit into your preconceived ideas.
So if you want to present something else, let’s have it, after presenting a ton of evidence--i really do not need to present more. and other posters have also presented evidence--which you ignore because of your extreme confirmation bias.
You also have used logical fallacies such as Ad hominem and strawman because of your extreme confirmation bias. You also have shown you lack a understanding how the minds of very good chess players work.
and, like your previous immature attempts, very good! doing another logical fallacy here!
it will be instantly refuted not just by me, but by any logical person here, and fortunately we have quite a few. and are they going to instantly refute all the other posters also?--i have noticed the other posters who i agree with were all quite good players.
Let’s have it!
The game of chess requires logic. But we are talking about perfect moves. We are not interested in how good are the GMs, or any player: no matter how good they are, from the vantage point of perfect moves they are nothing, and present-day machines as well.
You don’t understand what perfect is. You keep jumping to conclusions that some stupid moves which are hold in high regard by theory today can be called perfect. That is jumping to conclusions.
Next, the reason you don’t see that GMs jump to conclusions and are not ‘neutral’ in everyday life is because you don’t see yourself not being ‘neutral’ in everyday life.
Now, you are still utterly confused about what a belief is. You say ‘ I believe my son is in school right now.’ But the fact is, he could be anywhere else, despite your belief that he’s there, the fact is that you don’t really know. This is the fact. You can speculate where he is, based on ‘factual evidence’, but if you’re not there right now with him, you simply don’t know. You are speculating, which is what a belief is, despite ‘ factual evidence’.
Which is what we are saying: a perfect game may be a draw. It may not. Without speculating, we do not know. Unless we speculate. No speculation, no certainty. We don’t know. Nobody does.
The point is for you to start recognizing the difference between a certain fact and an uncertain belief/speculation. Two very different things.
You do not know that a perfect game is a draw in the same way you do know your son is in school right now.
You can speculate in each case, but the fact remains that you don’t know with certainty.
‘Who are you?’ As predicted, you are already speculating about the answer: the root-speculation of them all. I didn’t ask about ‘facts about you’. I asked who are you? Not what you did, what you accomplished, what you presently do, what you like and dislike, what is/was your profession—none of that. I asked who are you?
But you cannot approach anything directly, you need the helping crutch of belief.
Every rasonable chess player know chess is draw..
Rather, every reasonable player speculates that chess is a draw. That definition apparently excludes Kasparov, who doesn’t ‘know’ what other ‘reasonable’ players know...
Now, when you put it that way, according to your definition and adding the fact about Kasparov presented above, your statement is either denied—not every reasonable player knows what you said they know, since Kasparov is a more than reasonable player—or the statement is true, every reasonable player knows that, but ‘every’ eliminates Kasparov, who is now relegated to the status of not being a reasonable player—which is a non-fact, so again your initial statement is denied.
That being said, the strength of the player is irrelevant. The fact remains that as a fact, nobody knows.
Boom.
Q: After 1.e4 e5 does white have mate in 136 moves on the board?
A: “I don’t know”
Then you don’t KNOW if chess is a draw.