With Best Play for both sides Chess is a Draw--So Why Do We Play?

Jaaas

On, the contrary most religionists rely of faith rather than evidence but again if you wish to debate me on this go to  "Open Discussion" 

Not only will you get to debate me you will have to be able to answer questions from others and any statement you make [or I make] will be open to discussion.  This format is not the place...

Well, it's possible for two things to both be less than 100% likely, yet not have the same likelihood. For example, maybe one hypothetical theory is 85% likely and another is 30% likely. Although both are uncertain, one is better than the other, and the two shouldn't be treated as the same.

#396: I think it's mostly a matter of whether people mean "the particular regularities of the universe of which we described/represented with a mathematical system" or "the representations themselves (as opposed to the things represented)" when talking of math's existence or non-existence. Certainly it points to some truth in the universe; what we called it and how we thought of it was whatever worked for us. I think all that we can really say is that some truths are distinct from others -- we can only for sure (well, nearly) say that a 1 liter bottle has something different about it compared to a 2 liter bottle that is causing us to have a different perception of it -- we just decide to call it size and link that to our a posteriori understanding of what size is being referred to.

I would say the system reflects a reality, but the system itself is not actually embodying that reality. If someone has one apple on her plate, eats that one apple and then has no apples, what's going on is not a 1 turning into some oval/circle (0), after being attacked by a dash (minus sign), but rather, she is biting into an apple, swallowing it, and eventually it's nowhere to be seen on the plate. 1 - 1 = 0 is merely one way we might represent that.

Page 8 (in the sister thread to this one) effectively brings the discussion full circle.

On balance, @Ponz has it right.  At least the core part of it --

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/true-or-false-chess-is-a-draw-with-best-play-from-both-sides?lc=1#last_comment

Please stop going round in circles.  Every thread doesn't need to devolve into a (lame) discussion of the "meaning of meaning."  Whatever the hell that might mean.    

You may not enjoy discussions like that, but I do. You are free to not discuss it as much as you want, regardless of what is posted here

Speaking of "meaning of meaning," though, this might not be too hard to answer. Meaning consists of the criteria that makes something what it is, as well as the things that fit into that criteria. So for example "rectangle" has a definition, and it can also mean the things that meet criteria for one, such as a table perhaps.

So the criteria (or meaning) for "meaning" would be that it consists of criteria for something, etc.

And of course our understanding of criteria might depend on whatever word defines that, and so on -- no one is denying that language has to have an a posteriori component to it to have meaning.

I guess a cuter answer to a question like "what is meaning" would be, "it's the very inquiry you are now doing by saying 'what is' :) Just by asking what it is shows that you already know what it is! I think, anyway.

It depends what your definition of "definition" is.

Thanks for the Clintonian wordsmithing, @Grub.

You're such a deep thinker, when you want to be.

Your thinking is a massive yawn.

Learn to write persuasively, and concisely.  PLEASE.

It's not my problem that you're bored by writings I'm interested in, zborg. Your boredness is something for you to work out on your own -- I suggest you do things that interest you more.

Even if it looks sad and cute behind the bars of his cage, feeding the troll is never a good idea.

Truth be told, religious statements are mostly laid out in a dogmatic way, not even trying to provide any real explanations, but expecting the target audience to accept them by simply believing. Still, once someone endeavors to attempt making an argumentation of religious matters, it almost always happens to look similar to how you keep reasserting your main point concerning the supposed inherently drawn nature of chess.

Anyway, to me this thread, as well as the other two, by now resemble a dead* horse (and two of its equally dead clones) that keeps being beaten for whatever reason.

___

* Not "overwhelmingly dead", but just dead, as one can either be definitely dead or not at all, just as the OP's point can either have been evidenced to be true in a strict manner (which it hasn't) or not (which happens to be the case).

Double Yawn.  Only a mother could love that kind of reasoning, @Jaas.  But only with lots of practice.

"Truth be Told," your lead sentence is internally contradictory.  Read it again.  

No one may like my reasoning for all that I care. I can only reason, not control people's brains. I could just feed people with what they want to hear, but then it's like it's not even me speaking.

jaaas what is my main point regarding why I believe chess is a draw with best play?  [I want to see if you even know my main point]

Granted, I do understand where you're coming from regarding being concise, and it's not as easy to read my own post as if I'm someone else. It is interesting though how perceptions can differ, because for example, I thought post #313 by jaaas was pretty good, despite it not being concise -- I felt like I had a more thorough grasp of what he was trying to say. There were some parts I skimmed over because they were details I didn't care about, but on the issues I was interested in, I enjoyed it.

I guess to me, sometimes it's good to repeat yourself a little bit. If you just hear something once, you might react "sure, that makes sense" then forget it right away. At times, repeating an idea in subtle ways seems to embed the essence of an idea into my head a lot more solidly. It's kind of like how I learn tactics by really working on my pattern recognition. Sometimes I may look at multiple examples of the exact same tactical concept, all in similar, but still slightly different situations until it's forever imprinted in my mind.

@Jaaas and @Elubas are kissing cousins.  Q.E.D.

Finally, something on which we can all agree.  Break out the champagne!

Honestly, I only had originally come here to say that we don't need to analyze every single position to have a good idea of whether or not chess is a draw. But for whatever reason, five or six other slightly off topic philosophical issues got brought up by various posters, so I decided why not, let's talk about the ontology of numbers, lol.

In fact, I don't think the question of "why we play" was ever even answered by anyone because they hated ponz's claim so much :p

They are things that happened along the way...theories didn't create life, govern it or make it special...and those theories don't make the world go around or make life worth living...

You'd find if they burned them into a pile of ash, the world world change much, but it would change for the better...

I see quite a smoking gun when I look around...unlike murder cases where they say everything is circumstancial and have nothing tangible...

While I love to discuss such matters as anyone, the place for discussion on these matters is Open Discussion.

Those who really want to discuss and debate such matters go to Open Discussion rather than here where responses or limited or forbidden by chess.com.

The debaters on Open Discussion are very good and you will get your money's worth.