ponz111: I played one more slow game today, and the most extreme evaluation in the first 15 moves was -0.55, which is definitely not winning, so that means none of the 5 slow games I played this year were won by move 15.
Does this surprise you for a c-class/b-class player, or is that what you would expect, and does it make you less confident in your hypothesis that "most games are winning by move 15"?
I just noticed you started a separate thread for this topic, so I'll post over there.
Refomulate the question to get at the heart of the issue.
Can white, with the first move advantage FORCE a win?
Probably not. Checkers, with a first move advantage cannnot FORCE a win, and yes, it has already been solved.
Given the zillions of resourses (and examples) where 1,2, or even a full minor piece advantage CANNOT force a win, why in the world presume that white can (somehow) force a win?
And the people who want to leave open that question (of a forced win for black), the zugswang pinheads, are just being obtuse. Give it a rest.
Since the "solution" is likely impossible (since math can grow much faster than any physical /physics process that we currently understand), we might just take our que from the checkers solution, and presume a draw is the most likely outcome for both sides.
Very Simple. Not a Proof. Just clear thinking, and setting a frame.
MAYBE 1000 human generations from now we (might) have an answer. But don't count on it.
Or, take a GM poll, and the majority view would likely be a DRAW.
But that isn't scientific enough for the purists. Whatever. I'll take Richard Feynman's views anyday. No sense losing sleep over this food fight.
And the "perfect game" never enters into the discussion, until it's actually found.
Neat finish. 
Regarding numbers, are we talking about the system (e.g., the name "one," or "two") or are we talking about the things they represent?
I mean, at the very least, a particular instance that we would describe with the word "one" is different from an instance that we would describe with "two," right? If so, these words seem to succeed in representing some real characteristic/distinction. The fact that we're using the words "one" and "two" is of course arbitrary (instead we could use a word such as "ituytr" in place of "one," but we just happened to choose "one"), but the things that are being described by those words are another matter.
Yawn.
The purists keep returning to the rarefied air of Mount Olympus, where humans don't exist, and no one can breath because of the rigor(mortis).
Whatever.
zborg, you are such a condescending prick.
But I guess you'll take it as a compliment, because you try so hard to be one. So here you go!
He is a condescending prick but he is mostly right. When people are writing complete idiocy having a condescending prick around can be helpful.
With worst play for both sides chess should also be a draw.
With equal play, chess should always be a draw. So with perfect and worst play, but also with all balanced variations of it. The best player wins unless he is not much better..
For the avoidance of doubt, this is an ideologic statement and i would hope chess would work in such a fair way.
He is a condescending prick but he is mostly right. When people are writing complete idiocy having a condescending prick around can be helpful.
I don't suffer fools gladly. It's a character weakness of mine. Clearly.
At heart, I'm just a nominally educated jock. But I write and think concisely, and don't pretend that "chess knowledge" gives me any greater insight into the workings of society, or the nature of the universe. That kind of knowledge you don't find inside chess.
Instead, we find many pinheaded savants inside chess (and these forum threads), who habitually INSIST their expert knowledge of the Royal Game somehow carries over into other fields of human endeavor. Hence all the pontificating on the nature of science. That's another FACT, we all know to be true.
Chess players are a VERY eccentric lot. Myself included.
zborg is a student of the humanities that has a huge chip on his shoulder about science. In any topic where people rationally discuss mathematical or scientific topics in addition to (or instead of) chess, he will predictably show up and make derisive comments about savants or robots or pinheads or dr spocks.
Not me. Sorry. All humanity skills are entirely self taught. It's called reading widely.
Read a lot your posts too, @Sapient. But I will refrain from giving a Cliff Notes summary of your personage. Neat trick, regardless.
Mathematics does not exist without us (humans). The things mathematics explains will still exist, but there will be no way to explain them. I feel bad for whoever thinks a number is real, I repeat it is a concept used to explain observations.
Why do we play?
To compare capabilities of two players, thus if both are strong enough to actually draw the position.
I think it is fun and interesting, win or lose.
Some computerized games, seem to have a degree of randomness and don't matter how skillfully you play. The programmer designed a feature to make the results realistic, as compared to real life or if a fictious, to make it a challenge. Hence, you lose, even when you played extremely well. While chess still has this element, it is refreshing to know, or hope, it is merely another human befuddling you. It causes me to want to learn and grow instead of switching games.
There is the very practical hurdle to suggesting that a super computer could ever do a 32-man tablebase from the opening position.
Indeed, our sun would probably explode before a supercomputer could calculate a 32-man tablebase.
On a practical basis the best chess players already realize chess is a draw with best play on both side--so no need to try to have a super computer show us something many of us already know.
However, for a human to play chess without making a mistake is possible and has been done possibly millions of times.
In theory it is, but why then, if you take Houdini 3.0 and ask it to play itself, under equal circumstances( time to calculate and computer resources), do some openings result in a win or loss, for one side or the other ? That tells me that it is feasible, with best play, that some openings are a forced win for computers. The human element is basically the only reason this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Having said that, it makes my statement seem to have less merit. However, is it always a draw with best play for every opening ? Some have been refuted, so I guess that is more evidence to suggest it isn't always.
This leads me to the daring of the human spirit and our lust for competition. Some gladly engage in contests with others, knowing there is a risk or disadvantage. Call it confidence, arrogance, or stupidity, but some people are willing to take a calculated risk and relish in winning and knowing they may have been at a disadvantage, can swallow defeat more easily. This is part of what makes chess a great game and are part of the reasons people love to play.
"I feel bad for whoever thinks a number is real, I repeat it is a concept used to explain observations."
I feel bad for you. Numbers are deeply rich and deeply entwined with the fabric of the universe and the nature of God. That you don't know any of that means that you have never studied mathematics. Try reading about the prime number theorem and the Riemann hypothesis and then tell me that numbers are just made up concepts (and that's just integers). Then try complex variables and tell me that the universe is not structured using complex numbers. Look at Euler's identity. Explore representations of Pi and E and look at Ramunjan's fantastic results.
You are a silly person who thinks that he is clever but you are just uneducated.
I find no point in trying to argue with people who think they are more clever than the creator of existence. The findings of science continue to be a testiment to the complexity and elaborate design of everything and certain indivuals continue to try manufacturing theories for how there is no correlation. It is sad actually, all of that education and intelligence, yet would rather believe their convoluted ideas...
The nature of numbers and their existence is not a question of mathematics or science; it's a question of philosophy (philosophy of mathematics, to be precise). Many mathematicians have had different beliefs about such things. Kronecker famously said that the natural numbers are the work of God, and all the rest is due to man.
Complex numbers and linear algebra do seem to describe how the universe works at a fundamental level incredibly well, but it's perfectly consistent to accept that and still believe that the concept of number is just a very useful concept. That doesn't imply that numbers really exist, only that the universe behaves in ways that are best explained using concepts like linear algebra over the field of complex numbers. It's a subtle distinction, that many will think silly and not worth thinking about, but that's why it's a matter for philosophy and not one for mathematics ;-)
The nature of numbers and their existence is not a question of mathematics or science; it's a question of philosophy (philosophy of mathematics, to be precise). Many mathematicians have had different beliefs about such things. Kronecker famously said that the natural numbers are the work of God, and all the rest is due to man.
Complex numbers and linear algebra do seem to describe how the universe works at a fundamental level incredibly well, but it's perfectly consistent to accept that and still believe that the concept of number is just a very useful concept. That doesn't imply that numbers really exist, only that the universe behaves in ways that are best explained using concepts like linear algebra over the field of complex numbers. It's a subtle distinction, that many will think silly and not worth thinking about, but that's why it's a matter for philosophy and not one for mathematics ;-)
Fundamental flaw in philosophy...philosophers readily believe man created knowledge... Man discovered the knowledge of what was created.
A better way to put it, inches existed before we figured out a ruler could measure them. Time existed before we firgured out clocks could keep track of it. You can't measure something that isn't there. Numbers and mathematics were the systems we used to express these measurements. Philosophers simply argued about these thruths, because they didn't want to accept them. Many people against any form of theism, can't accept such a simple straight forward answer. They will generally only settle on one that is humanistic atheistic...so it isn't a matter of truth as it is a matter of accepting or not accepting truth...
There is the very practical hurdle to suggesting that a super computer could ever do a 32-man tablebase from the opening position.
Indeed, our sun would probably explode before a supercomputer could calculate a 32-man tablebase.
On a practical basis the best chess players already realize chess is a draw with best play on both side--so no need to try to have a super computer show us something many of us already know.
However, for a human to play chess without making a mistake is possible and has been done possibly millions of times.