"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?

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? I would say that there is no having an
advantage without having *winning chances*. And that is
a function of the position and opposition. If the position was
a simple draw for Fischer, then calling it "dead drawn" was
not only not a lie, but correct.

Of course there are plenty of harder positions in which
GMs might have difficulty achieving the theoretical result.

Agreed. Would you play on if you had an advantage in those positions?
But the question is whether *the position in game one that
we are discussing* is one of those positions. So far, neither
you nor help bot in your rush to attack Evans have given
any evidence to support that.

Phil, err, David, would you kindly show me where I "attacked" Evans
over this endgame? I've searched and I can't find it. I'll wait for the
apology.

OK, I guess you didn't attack Evans (in this thread). You were just
offering some mindless defenses of help bot's attacks. Sorry.

I haven't written anything about Evans' statements regarding the
position from the Fischer-Spassky game. I've tried, and apparently
failed, to convince David Foster Kane that the views he holds about
"advantage" are silly.

But to repeat, *is* the position in game one that we are
discussing one that GMs might have difficulty achieving
the theoretical result? If you see that it isn't,
could you please use those vaunted teaching skills
of yours on help bot instead of me?

Why? And where is the Fischer-Spassky endgame considered "theoretical?"
If it were known to be a draw in theory, then I would be very surprised
to see "helpbot", a poster who I suspect to be NM Greg Kennedy,
consider it otherwise. As it stands, an NM disagrees with a GM over the
merits of White's position. It's hardly the first time it's happened.
"Nothing to see here folks!"


You're not paying attention. Help bot has said
that Evans has *lied* about the position. And if
help bot (whom I know only from his postings here
which I generally agree with) wants to argue from
authority based on his high rating, then he can't do
so anonymously. I've never heard *anyone* take
help bot's position that Fischer would have been
hard-pressed to hold the draw, even though no
doubt just about every strong chess player in
the world is aware of the position. So authority
is not going to be on his side whatever his rating.

He's stuck providing actual evidence showing
plausible GMish winning white lines. Or in its
absence, admitting that he was wrong.




So when GMs argue from
authority that the position is dead drawn, those
arguments carry the day.