If he says chess is a draw--he means chess is a draw.
Can you send me some links to their actual quotes? I won't try to read minds. Let's see what they actually said. Please show specific references to where I can read what they actually said. I would like to know if they are talking about grandmaster-level play, or mathematically perfect play.
Troy. Why dont you just admit that we never questioned that we do not know what the outcome of chess is with 100% certainty. That would be at least a first step. Without that admittance you are lying and cannot be considered as a serious debator here.
I don’t think you count at all in all this. You have zero logic.
If you don’t know without a doubt that chess is a draw, then you don’t know, period. You are speculating, or rather Ponz is speculating and you repeat what he says.
As a speculation nobody cares about it, the contradiction comes when you present that guess as a fact.
maybe this will show up?
White to move, find the best moves. [there is only one set of best moves in this problem]
There you go again: after playing 50 non-best moves, you are introducing an ending where a best move is possible to spot. I’ve already described this situation: it proves zilch. you are making another mistake in your assumption--this position DID NOT come from 50 non-best moves!
I don’t care where it comes from. If it’s a composition it’s still meaningless. As noted above, it means that today’s engines can be blundering puppets for a future super-computer. You are so sloooow to make connections.
And if it came from a game it’s also meaningless.
maybe this will show up?
White to move, find the best moves. [there is only one set of best moves in this problem]
There you go again: after playing 50 non-best moves, you are introducing an ending where a best move is possible to spot. I’ve already described this situation: it proves zilch. you are making another mistake in your assumption--this position DID NOT come from 50 non-best moves!
I don’t care where it comes from. If it’s a composition it’s still meaningless. As noted above, it means that today’s engines can be blundering puppets for a future super-computer. You are so sloooow to make connections.
And if it came from a game it’s also meaningless.
If he says chess is a draw--he means chess is a draw.
Can you send me some links to their actual quotes? I won't try to read minds. Let's see what they actually said. Please show specific references to where I can read what they actually said. I would like to know if they are talking about grandmaster-level play, or mathematically perfect play. this was your quote--not mine. I am just saying if a grandmaster says chess is a draw--he means what he says. [not what you make up what he means]
maybe this will show up?
White to move, find the best moves. [there is only one set of best moves in this problem]
There you go again: after playing 50 non-best moves, you are introducing an ending where a best move is possible to spot. I’ve already described this situation: it proves zilch.
Actually you are incorrect. The position and solution DOES prove something. It proves that sometimes humans can find best moves that a strong chess engine cannot find.
No, it proves that a strong engine of today is a pure joke of tomorrow. I’ve been saying this from the beginning, but who’s to listen?
Just because you say a strong engine of today is a pure joke of tomorrow--does not mean you are correct.
Qualification and honesty is low here. Exception: Ponz, Elroch, me and very few others.
Lol. Who are you?
Something does not have to be 100% math proven to be a fact.
Something does not have to be 100% math proven before we can state it is a fact.
Those who say otherwise seem to have a poor imagination.
There is a planet that has a ring around it that nobody on earth has ever seen. This is a fact even though we cannot 100% math prove it.
maybe this will show up?
White to move, find the best moves. [there is only one set of best moves in this problem]
There you go again: after playing 50 non-best moves, you are introducing an ending where a best move is possible to spot. I’ve already described this situation: it proves zilch.
Actually you are incorrect. The position and solution DOES prove something. It proves that sometimes humans can find best moves that a strong chess engine cannot find.
No, it proves that a strong engine of today is a pure joke of tomorrow. I’ve been saying this from the beginning, but who’s to listen?
Just because you say a strong engine of today is a pure joke of tomorrow--does not mean you are correct.
It is however true that the likes of Deep Blue would lose almost every game against a modern top chess engine. It is not clear how much further this will go over many decades.
A saw several games on talkchess , 6-12 games, where top 3 engines play 50-100 billion nodes per moves or depth 50 and above, they all ended as draw. As chess is extremely drawish game with big margin of draw ( even if you lose a pawn or a piece, you can still get draw in many positions), losing from one side is always due to severe mistake(s). (meaning dead draw like, tic-tac-toe or checker)
If he says chess is a draw--he means chess is a draw.
Can you send me some links to their actual quotes? I won't try to read minds. Let's see what they actually said. Please show specific references to where I can read what they actually said. I would like to know if they are talking about grandmaster-level play, or mathematically perfect play. this was your quote--not mine. I am just saying if a grandmaster says chess is a draw--he means what he says. [not what you make up what he means]
Ok, thanks. By the context of what grandmasters say, when they say chess is a draw, they usually mean that games played between two humans at grandmaster-level will most often (but not always) end in a draw. But in the context of perfect play, mathematicians, chess theorists, and grandmasters who discuss chess from a mathematical standpoint have not come to a conclusion on who wins a perfectly played chess game.
Why don't any of the grandmasters say it in writing?
Why don't any of the grandmasters say it in writing?
Some probably do. But very probably the reason they seldom say it in writing or verbally is that it is so darn OBVIOUS to them and the other grandmasters they hang around with--they do not need to say it in writing or verbally.
One may know the sun will not explode by next week but it is so darn obvious to that person that he will probably not say it verbally or put it into writing.
Only some/most of the weaker players do not realize chess is a draw with best play. [weaker than the 2300 level USCF]
I don't need to talk to liars who dominate this discussion and gurgurate the same claims over and over again.
There is ONE SENTENCE that shows that you deny science in general.
You said, word for word, that relative truth would be never truth.
Btw, I am a professor of Mathematics at a Chinese university. Saying that I wouldn't have logic makes you look very stupid.
You still have no clue what we are saying here. Post no. 6440 is the latest proof. Nobody is debating Ponz’s beliefs. He, like anybody else, is free to believe whatever he wants. No beef whatsoever with that.
The problem, can you pay attention, Chinese math teacher, can you pay a little attention without getting emotional, which denies logic, to understand that presenting a belief as a fact is the only thing that we are discussing here? The only thing.
And being a math teacher, just like being a chess player, doesn’t guarantee that the logic in one field extrapolates in everyday life. Getting all emotional like a little girl, defending the illusion of the self-image, certainly defies logic.
Secondly, perhaps you don’t understand what the English word ‘lie’ means: it needs an intent to pass a non-fact as a fact. If anything, I can attribute that to Ponz, but since I don’t know his intent for sure—he may just not understand certain key words correctly—I refrain from using that word in connection with him.
Unless you can show us an intent to pass a false thing as true, perhaps you shouldn’t use it either. troy can be delusional, you can make a case for that, but ‘liar’ is a different thing. Look them up to see the distinction.
So far, still zero logic. Including trying to present your day job as an argument for displaying logic here.
If perfect chess is deemed to be a draw, then it doesn't really matter either way—the game will go on with future generations playing, as usual.
On the other hand, if an engine or AI comes along and discovers a line that irrefutably wins by force ... well, then that would very likely spell the end of chess. Players will just spend their time memorizing that line, going into it with the knowledge that it's a proven win.
Hopefully that never happens.
Do not worry--that will NEVER happen! 
troy Most every thing you say or post is not a "fact" by your definition of "fact".
There are thousands of facts you cannot state per your definition of "fact".
So, really there is no reason to listen to you anymore as you distort things and you say several things proven to be untrue and your postings are not "fact"
By the way a "fact" is a "fact" even if it is not proven by math as i have demonstrated.
Facts do not have to be proven at all to be "facts".
That’s the point: it’s a belief. Now that belief may be a fact, or may not. At the moment all you have is a bunch of beliefs, which you use to prove that main belief, that chess is a draw is a fact.
Therefore, you haven’t proven anything. At the moment, your belief is not a fact. You say you cannot prove it using math. But you cannot prove it using anything. It has been refuted over and over.
Nobody cares how strongly you believe in this non-fact. It’s still a belief. Keep it to yourself.
Haha, you’re funny: don’t delude yourself that you are not listening to me anymore. You never listened at all, to any of the logical facts presented here.
Back to square one, dear: you don’t know jack.
If he says chess is a draw--he means chess is a draw.
Can you send me some links to their actual quotes? I won't try to read minds. Let's see what they actually said. Please show specific references to where I can read what they actually said. I would like to know if they are talking about grandmaster-level play, or mathematically perfect play. this was your quote--not mine. I am just saying if a grandmaster says chess is a draw--he means what he says. [not what you make up what he means]
Ok, thanks. By the context of what grandmasters say, when they say chess is a draw, they usually mean that games played between two humans at grandmaster-level will most often (but not always) end in a draw.
Just about. In my database, 53% of games between players over 2500 were draws.
But in the context of perfect play, mathematicians, chess theorists, and grandmasters who discuss chess from a mathematical standpoint have not come to a conclusion on who wins a perfectly played chess game.
maybe this will show up?
White to move, find the best moves. [there is only one set of best moves in this problem]
There you go again: after playing 50 non-best moves, you are introducing an ending where a best move is possible to spot. I’ve already described this situation: it proves zilch.
Actually you are incorrect. The position and solution DOES prove something. It proves that sometimes humans can find best moves that a strong chess engine cannot find.
No, it proves that a strong engine of today is a pure joke of tomorrow. I’ve been saying this from the beginning, but who’s to listen?