In our gut, "we know it's a draw" because there are billions of games where one side has a (equivalent) advantage of 3 pawns (equal to a full minor piece) but that side still cannot deliver a forced mate.
The idea of "Best Play By Both Sides" is just frosting on this cake. 
Your diagram isn’t loading.
Edit. Okay, it’s loading on the app. What about it?
It proves that your statement--per that one sentence--was incorrect.
I will give another diagram to also prove your statement was not correct.
No. It didn’t.
Only one move wins the rook, a human can see that. We know FROM EXAMINING ALL POSSIBLE LINES that king vs king and rook wins by force. We also know *from examining all possible moves* that king and rook vs king and rook is a draw with best play on both sides.
I acknowledged that humans can find perfect moves in some simplified positions.
Best Wishes to All. Try to keep it civil.
Many moves of strong engines are perfect.
A wild speculation. It is meaningless to play a perfect move on your 25th move, if you already played 24 imperfect moves.
After playing one imperfect move, the notion of perfect loses its meaning. Strong engines may play strong moves, maybe even perfect, but nobody knows they don’t commit blunders galore where we see ‘perfect’... We can speculate but we don’t know. Only a supercomputer would know, which was the whole point here.
There is a fairly strong argument that many (probably most) moves of strong players are perfect in the precise sense of not changing the theoretical result.
The first element of the argument is that most positions in table bases have multiple best moves. The second element is the reasonable assertion that strong players play moves which substantially more likely to be good in the precise sense than bad (i.e. their play doesn't amount entirely to unsound traps that pay off!). Given a reasonable estimate of the number of good moves and the strength of the preference for strong players for genuinely good moves, the best judgment would be that they play a lot of them.
In our gut, "we know it's a draw" because there are billions of games where one side has a (equivalent) advantage of 3 pawns (equal to a full minor piece) but that side still cannot deliver a forced mate.
The idea of "Best Play By Both Sides" is just frosting on this cake.
Speculate... open question... has not been proven... in our gut...
All contradict with KNOW....
Would you like to pick a position?
marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before! [that is all i can remember]
Do you agree or disagree with zborg‘s assertion that perfect chess being a draw is conjecture? That it’s an “open question” that hasn’t been proven?
Yes, that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error which would change the course of the game is my opinion, it is a conjecture, which is an opinion based on incomplete information.
I do not have complete information as chess has never been solved.
However i do have a whole lot of evidence that my opinion/conjecture is correct.
A conjecture or opinion could be correct even if it is not 100% proven.
Just because it is a conjecture [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.
marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus going on before! [that is all i can remember]
Do you agree or disagree with zborg‘s assertion that perfect chess being a draw is conjecture? That it’s an “open question” that hasn’t been proven?
Yes, that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error which would change the course of the game is my opinion, it is a conjecture, which is an opinion based on incomplete information.
I do not have complete information as chess has never been solved.
However i do have a whole lot of evidence that my opinion/conjecture is correct.
A conjecture or opinion could be correct even if it is not 100% proven.
Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.
BOOM 💥
“Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.”
Nobody said that. Nobody implied that. We took issue with your previous repeated statements that you could KNOW it’s a draw. And also your claims that there is PROOF it’s a draw.
I can't see why ponz said that. There have been no serious claims that he is certainly wrong.
You're a Christian Soldier (US Army guy)
I would like justification for this statement.
Your diagram isn’t loading.
Edit. Okay, it’s loading on the app. What about it?
It proves that your statement--per that one sentence--was incorrect.
I will give another diagram to also prove your statement was not correct.
No. It didn’t.
Only one move wins the rook, a human can see that. We know FROM EXAMINING ALL POSSIBLE LINES that king vs king and rook wins by force. this is total BS. I know that king and rook wins by force and i got my knowledge from practical play. I got this knowledge way before any chess engine examined all the possible lines of an endgame of king and rook vs king.
We also know *from examining all possible moves* that king and rook vs king and rook is a draw with best play on both sides. Wrong, I know this without "examining all possible moves" and the vast majority of chess players know this without examining all possible moves.
I acknowledged that humans can find perfect moves in some simplified positions. Well, this is a change from some of your previous statements. Now, maybe, some day you will acknowledge that there are thousands of simplified positions where humans can find perfect moves...?
Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.
That’s what we’ve been saying from the beginning. It is your opinion, not a fact.
A belief, a speculation. You did not follow but I explained that there are two facts. One is the fact of the actual outcome of the perfect game. The other is of you speculating or having an opinion about that outcome. If that was a fact that could be seen, there would be no need to have an opinion about it.
Opinions come into play when the fact is not seen.
As previously noted, you did not understand what was said. As an opinion no one has any problem with it.
The problem was when you tried to present this opinion as a fact you can see. Not as a fact that exists independently of your seeing it or not. But a fact that you can see.
Which you don’t, hence you formed an opinion.
Problem solved.
“Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.”
Nobody said that. Nobody implied that. We took issue with your previous repeated statements that you could KNOW it’s a draw. And also your claims that there is PROOF it’s a draw.
Why doesn’t anybody ( more or less) understand that this was the only issue?
Your diagram isn’t loading.
Edit. Okay, it’s loading on the app. What about it?
It proves that your statement--per that one sentence--was incorrect.
I will give another diagram to also prove your statement was not correct.
No. It didn’t.
Only one move wins the rook, a human can see that. We know FROM EXAMINING ALL POSSIBLE LINES that king vs king and rook wins by force. this is total BS. I know that king and rook wins by force and i got my knowledge from practical play. I got this knowledge way before any chess engine examined all the possible lines of an endgame of king and rook vs king.
We also know *from examining all possible moves* that king and rook vs king and rook is a draw with best play on both sides. Wrong, I know this without "examining all possible moves" and the vast majority of chess players know this without examining all possible moves.
I acknowledged that humans can find perfect moves in some simplified positions. Well, this is a change from some of your previous statements. Now, maybe, some day you will acknowledge that there are thousands of simplified positions where humans can find perfect moves...?
You know, it’s tempting to rebut the first two, but it’s unnecessary because you already FINALLY CONCEDED YOUR ASSERTION IS SPECULATION BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.
“Well, this is a change from some of your previous statements.”
NO. It’s NOT. I have said this MANY times. I even gave “Mate in 1” as an example of humans finding perfect moves in SOME positions. STOP LYING.
Edit: And if you attempt to find something that contradicts that make sure you copy and paste the ENTIRE post and give the POST NUMBER to prevent you from taking it out of context.
“Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.”
Nobody said that. Nobody implied that. We took issue with your previous repeated statements that you could KNOW it’s a draw. And also your claims that there is PROOF it’s a draw.
I very carefully explained what i mean by "know" it meant I am 99.99% sure it is a draw under the conditions stated.
And to me 99.99% sure is how i can know anything.
By the way the word "know" has several synonyms and these include "realize" "notice" "discern" "cognize" and "perceive"
There are things we know without having math proof that we know. I know that many stars have planets orbiting those stars. I know my dog is in my room right now. I cannot math prove these things but i still know them.
“Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.”
Nobody said that. Nobody implied that. We took issue with your previous repeated statements that you could KNOW it’s a draw. And also your claims that there is PROOF it’s a draw.
I very carefully explained what i mean by "know" it meant I am 99.99% sure it is a draw under the conditions stated.
And to me 99.99% sure is how i can know anything.
By the way the word "know" has several synonyms and these include "realize" "notice" "discern" "cognize" and "perceive"
There are things we know without having math proof that we know. I know that many stars have planets orbiting those stars. I know my dog is in my room right now. I cannot math prove these things but i still know them.
ANYTHING includes whether the earth revolves around the sun!
You conceded it is CONJECTURE BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.
So yes, that’s a huge walk back from being AS certain chess is a draw as you are the earth revolves around the sun. It’s also a walk back from your previous statements it has been PROVEN.
troy it is a logical fallacy to consider the game of chess could end in a draw or in a loss or in a win and that means that since there are 3 possibilities that means each possibility has a 33% chance of happening...Ludic logical fallacy
It could be one of three options. So the chances you are correct by picking any one of them are 33.33%. If there were more options to choose from, the percentage being much smaller, the impulse to speculate would be even more futile.
But one chance in three to be right? Speculate if you feel you must: just don’t pretend it’s not a speculation, ultimately.
After all, 33% or 99% —same difference: they’re both not a fact.
Of course, your coming up with the actual number of 99% has no mathematical basis, whereas 33% has.
I will give an anology. Here are 3 possibilities concerning where my dog sleeps. 90% of the time he sleeps on our bed. 6% of the time he sleeps on the floor. 4% of the time he sleeps under our bed.
Do you really think if we do not know where he is sleeping now--that each of the 3 possibilities is equally likely?
conjecture
[kuh n-jek-cher]
noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
“Just because it is a conjector [or my opinion] does not mean it is wrong.”
Nobody said that. Nobody implied that. We took issue with your previous repeated statements that you could KNOW it’s a draw. And also your claims that there is PROOF it’s a draw.
I very carefully explained what i mean by "know" it meant I am 99.99% sure it is a draw under the conditions stated.
And to me 99.99% sure is how i can know anything.
By the way the word "know" has several synonyms and these include "realize" "notice" "discern" "cognize" and "perceive"
There are things we know without having math proof that we know. I know that many stars have planets orbiting those stars. I know my dog is in my room right now. I cannot math prove these things but i still know them.
ANYTHING includes whether the earth revolves around the sun!
You conceded it is CONJECTURE BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.I never said i had complete information--i said i had evidence.[a lot of evidence] I don't think that anyone has complete information about anything as I could be a figment of imagination in some being's mind.
So yes, that’s a huge walk back from being AS certain chess is a draw as you are the earth revolves around the sun. No it is not as i am still certain chess is a draw [under conditions stated] as that i am sure that earth resolves round the sun.
It’s also a walk back from your previous statements it has been PROVEN. I said the accumulation of evidence proves i am correct. "prove" means to establish the truth by evidence or argument. [this i have done] Synonyms of "prove" are "demonstrate" and "substantiate"
You're a Christian Soldier (Army guy), I'm a mostly secular, former Catholic. Our area of agreement is rather limited, unfortunately.
Besides, I'm a fan of Ponz111, as should be obvious from my comments in this 5000+ crazy arse thread.
I have written the same essential summary (c.f. posts above) at least once every 1000 posts, but people don't actually read what comes before in these threads.
So Knock Yourselves Out, as you drive this circular discussion on and on.
I’m a Soldier, but Christian? THAT was conjecture.
You’re a fan, you derided me for debating ponz111, AND THEN YOU ASSERTED MY SIDE OF THE DEBATE.
So thank you for the support, albeit unintended.