On 13 Mar, 23:16, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...

On 13 Mar, 22:18, "David Kane" wrote:

So you know these tablebases better than a super-GM, do you? You play
them perfectly? I'm impressed.

Why would I need to know them in order to determine that
the players blundered?

You wouldn't. It's just a good idea, in general, to understand stuff,
instead of looking it up.

I can just look them up.

Yes, you can, but do you understand what you're looking up?


Why
can't you do the same?


I can, but I prefer to *analyse* the position and check my analysis
against perfect play.



Just look it up.
The result (once down to 6 pieces) went from
draw - win - draw -win. That's the 3 errors.

Uh huh. Again... you're missing the point.

Apparently. What was your point?

Analysing and learning endgames is good. Merely looking them up is
pointless.

My point was that
in positions simple enough for the tablebase to have
been calculated, the world's best players blunder.

Yes, it was, several posts ago. Several posts ago I pointed out that
this is hardly news.

The
(unproven) factor you're basing your argument on ("chess
is a draw") wasn't enough to lead to a draw in the
example, so why should it be in the fuller more complex
game?


All decisive games contain a decisive mistake. Discuss. But please do
your homework first, instead of merely reiterating what you've already
asserted.

snipped

Pick a decisive game that wasn't decided by zeitnot. Demonstrate that
there wasn't a decisive error which led to the loss. It's pretty
simple.

Drawn games *also* contain errors.

Sure. Does perfect play? Discuss.

As I've said, even if you
prove that chess is a draw (I'm not holding my breath),
that does *not* make the case that it is responsible for draw
rates.

No, but GMs' *knowing* that chess is a draw does. Like I already said.

If GMs had the 32-piece tablebase memorized (like
Tic-Tac-Toe players) then you'd have a point.


In that case chess would have been solved. I have a point in any case.
Prove that I don't.




On this evidence, it seems that *you* haven't understood the rest of
my post, neither have you read the archive, nor examined any of the
evidence. Is it worth arguing with you? I doubt it.

Prove me wrong.

I certainly have not, nor will not, read "the archive", whatever
that is, unless you give me some idea that it contains something
useful.

Ok, but that places you at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion.