...yes, but there will be millions [or billions] of perfectly played games. And they will all end in a draw...
Is that speculation or has it been proven?
It has not been proven 100% as the game of chess has not been solved.
However, even though it has not been proven 100%--it is very likely true.
Haha, the only way to prove it’s not a win, is by proving that the it’s not a draw!
To 6322.
I am afraid that ponz thinks that "games for which no mistakes have been found" is the same as "games that have no mistakes". If that is so, ponz, you are mistaken.
Obviously. Because he relies on the best players’ evaluations as being the last word.
Actually the fact that there are some games where no mistake have been found and they end in a draw is just one piece of evidence that chess is a draw. There is much more evidence.
Also, it is a lie that i rely on the best players' evaluations as being the last word. I do not believe the best players' evaluations as being the last word as there is more evidence in that.
You are making the mistake of taking one part or two parts of my evidence as the whole of my evidence--you seem to do this often.
If I were on a jury I would look at it like this. The things Vick, Troy, Elroch, and Bog say all make pretty good sense. They say things that are common sense and facts, not speculation. At least when they do say things that are speculative they openly admit it or say they wonder about it. Other people believe or speculate that chess is a draw, and maybe it is. But to claim that the best evidence says chess is a draw is just nonsense. No one knows enough yet to make that kind of claim. I say this because I have jury duty in a month.
I am afraid that ponz thinks that "games for which no mistakes have been found" is the same as "games that have no mistakes". If that is so, ponz, you are mistaken.
Obviously. Because he relies on the best players’ evaluations as being the last word.
Actually the fact that there are some games where no mistake have been found and they end in a draw is just one piece of evidence that chess is a draw. There is much more evidence.
But that’s the point: what you call ‘evidence’ is really not. It’s just silly talk. Just because blind people ( who don’t have the whole image in front of them) found no mistakes means absolutely nothing at all. Again, today’s players may prove to be senile puppets by the whole picturev provided by a future super-engine.
Therefore, that ‘evidence’ proves nothing, zip, zilch. And the same with the rest of the ridiculously circular thinking where the ‘perfect’ moves are assumed to be the ones which don’t change the theoretical result of the game, which result you don’t know what it is, which is why you were trying to prove your speculation by bringing in ‘perfect’ moves.
Which ‘perfect’ moves were such only if you could prove what was the theoretical result of the game. Problem is, this is exactly what you were trying to prove, not rely on as a fact.
Every single ‘evidence’ is crooked, and relies on a nonfact to be presented as a fact, in order for that crooked evidence to appear as a fact. Crooked from A to Z.
You completely miss the point in this discussion: Ponz has said more than once that he is convinced that chess is a draw, with a 99% confidence level.
With his opinion he is in good company wsith thousands of GMs.
I would say, with 99% confidence level that there is no superGM (elo 2600 at least) who has a different opinion.
On the other hand, Troy has said more than once that chess theory would be worthless because we do not know how to evaluate chess position with 100% confidence level.
Now I ask you, who committed a mistake here?
Of course, only Troy!
But I dont care about his confidence level. I'm going to be on a jury. To be honest, I only care about the facts. You say he is in good company with thousands of GMs, and that could be. But what happens if the opposing side asks you how many thousands of GMs? Is it 3 thousand? 5 Thousand? 10 thousand? How many thousands of GMs agree with him and his confidence?
Are you ignoring my facts? The overwhelming majority of GMs is with Ponz.
What facts? What majority? What if the opposing side asks you how many GMs? How many thousands of GMs agree with him? What's the number. Saying you believe something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. You have to actually come up with a number, and then prove it.
What is its record as black?
Is there a live running results tally?
I don't think AZ can play with black, they havn't figured that part out yet, they are going to tackle that after they get white done, so every time the colors alternate it scores up a loss as black since it has to forfeit, that makes it even as total wins equal total losses :-))
just kidding- against stockfish 8 it won 3 with black
"AlphaZero won 25 games as white, won 3 as black, and drew the remaining 72."
That's great, but it's just your opinion. I dont care about your confidence level, or his. You said thousands of GMs agree with him. So pretend the opposing side is asking you how many thousands. If it's 50 thousand GMs it would help your cause. If it's only 5 thousand, not as much. How many thousands of GMs agree with him?
That's great, but it's just your opinion. I dont care about your confidence level, or his. You said thousands of GMs agree with him. So pretend the opposing side is asking you how many thousands. If it's 50 thousand GMs it would help your cause. If it's only 5 thousand, not as much. How many thousands of GMs agree with him?
Everyone here knows that there are less than 2000 GMs worldwide, right?
I dont even know that:). Is there a website on that information?
But even if there were a few ten thosands GMs, my claimed
confidence level is in agreement with math statistics.
I guess I have just one question. You asked me about your "facts". You said thousands of GMs agree with him. So I asked how many thousands. Now you are saying you dont know. So why would you say something is a fact if you dont even know? I would really, really question the credibility of someone who does that.
Chess will be solved when the Great Mass of Unwashed declare that it has been so. Those with expertise will be silenced. We are almost there.
First step: change the definition of evidence.
Second step: obliterate critical distinctions.
You completely miss the point in this discussion: Ponz has said more than once that he is convinced that chess is a draw, with a 99% confidence level.
With his opinion he is in good company wsith thousands of GMs.
I would say, with 99% confidence level that there is no superGM (elo 2600 at least) who has a different opinion.
On the other hand, Troy has said more than once that chess theory would be worthless because we do not know how to evaluate chess position with 100% confidence level.
Now I ask you, who committed a mistake here?
Of course, only Troy!
You may not know exactly how many GMs there are. I dont either. But at least you know there are thousands. So what's your best guess as to how many thousands of GMs he's in good company with. And no, I"m not ignoring your facts, I'm just wondering if they are actually facts, rather than opinion.
I already said that I have high confidence (level higher than 90%) that at least 95% of all GMs (no matter whether there are merely 2000 or few ten thousand out there) share the opinion of Ponz111.
I am afraid you do not know much about Statistical tests, because you repeat yourself and keep ignoring my words about opinion polls. - It seems you dismiss them all as invalid (same as weather forecasts and many other informations that surround us and are based on such statistical evidence), because they are done on sample sizes that are a relatively small fraction from the total population.
Again: the sample I 'checked' (some dozen FMs, IMs and GMs, in total more than hundred) is sufficient for my confidence level.
I didnt ask about your opinion on statistics. I didn't ask about Ponzs. I didn't ask about your confidence level, opinion polls, or sample size.
Since you said there are thousands of GMs that agree with Ponz, I simply asked how many thousands? You later said I was ignoring your facts. Well, tell me, factually, how many thousands of GMs agree with Ponz. It's a one sentence response. Whether it's 50 thousand, 10 thousand, 5 thousand, whatever. How many thousands of GMs agree with him?
That's great, but it's just your opinion. I dont care about your confidence level, or his. You said thousands of GMs agree with him. So pretend the opposing side is asking you how many thousands. If it's 50 thousand GMs it would help your cause. If it's only 5 thousand, not as much. How many thousands of GMs agree with him?
Everyone here knows that there are less than 2000 GMs worldwide, right?
Not long ago, it used to be 1200, but that number increased to just under 1600 last year.
It cant be much higher than 10000 according to my conviction, it doesn't matter!!!)
Haha, oh, but it does! That shows how little does someone know in this field.
I would guess it is WAY less than 5% of GMs who think chess is not a draw with best play on both sides. Probably less than 1%.
In my whole life i have only encountered 1 GM who thought White was a win with best play and he was promoting a book which said that.
After the book was printed he was beat rather badly using his ideas.
I think his book promotion got to his head. However, even in his book, he could give no line where White had a win from the first move.
I think you want to make fun of me, but actually, you make fun of yourself:
I clearly said that I am very confident that more than 95% of all GMs agree with Ponz111. Because we both dont know the actual number of GMs (it is 2000 according to someone who said that here, it cant be much higher than 10000 according to my conviction, it doesn't matter!!!) Can you do the Math yourself?
I will check now on the FIDE website.
I dont want to make fun of anyone. I said I was going to be on a jury, and I might have to decide who is telling the truth and who isnt. Who is giving an opinion, and who is stating a fact. You said thousands of GMs agree with Ponz. So when I asked how many thousands, you asked me if I was ignoring your facts. So, what facts did you say to me in the post about thousands of GMs agreeing with him? Because I didn't see a single one. I saw your opinion, but I did not see any facts. Did I miss something?
Now you say there are 1594 GMs in the world, but before you confidently stated, as a fact, that there were thousands. My point earlier is that people like Troy, Elroch, Vick, Bog, and others are more believable. They say things that make more sense and are more credible. This is a perfect example. Maybe chess is a draw, maybe it isn't. But to state as a fact that "thousands" of GMs agree that chess is a draw just isn't true and it makes me think that a few want it to be a draw so much they are willing to think their beliefs or wishes are facts. They are not facts, they are just opinions.
I am afraid that ponz thinks that "games for which no mistakes have been found" is the same as "games that have no mistakes". If that is so, ponz, you are mistaken.
Obviously. Because he relies on the best players’ evaluations as being the last word.