"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is
being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead)
drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to
make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too
much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does
not
in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not
winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is
an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am
merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in
chess.

Gee, thanks. I'm sure I'll really benefit from that.

One can only hope.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with
the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is
in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

In fact, I gave an analogous example. I pointed out that many
K+P vs. K endings that are both theoretically and practically
drawn for players of a certain level (even your level),
would, in the hands of 6 year olds, produce a fair number
of wins for the side with the pawn. Didn't you read that?

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra
piece?

Heck, I might even be tempted to play out a drawn K+P vs K,
but I wouldn't claim an advantage (unless perhaps I'm playing
one of those 6 year olds).

Do you understand that perhaps there is a difference in skill level
between a basic technical draw in K + P vs K and R + B vs R?

*And* in the position under discussion. Would you rather take
Fischer's position before Bxh2, or the R side of R+B vs. R?

If forced to choose between the two, Fischer's position. White's
advantage is less striking than in the pawnless ending.

But my example is closer to the position under discussion than
your example.

I'm not discussing the position from the Fischer-Spassky match. I am
discussing your statement that there is no having an advantage without
having a win.

Where did I say that?

Sigh. "Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn." - David
Foster Kane

"An advantage is something that
helps you win the game. Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage." - David Foster Kane

David, I thought I gave up replying to this sort of debating technique
when I went on the Innes Wagon. I do so now. Please enjoy arguing chess
theory with Paul Rubin and "helpbot"; I am done with this.

Your logic/reading skills need some work. In the position in question,
help bot (sort of) acknowledged that Spassky had no winning chances but
still claimed that Spassky had an advantage. I did *not* say that
only positions with a forced win can be said to have an advantage.

In fact, I gave a clear cut example showing that I don't
believe a theoretical "best-play" assessment to be the only
factor. Remember the "6 year olds playing a "drawn" KP
vs K ending."?

In your rush to throw out petty insults, you're not paying
very close attention to what is being said. It's a shame
because I think you really could learn something from
the discussion, even if you aren't able to add to
it.