On 14 Mar, 00:25, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...





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

roups.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.

And this has what to do with draw rates????

Well, you see, chess is a draw. Any serious and even approximately
accurate analysis points to this.

Please try to stay on
topic.

I am on topic, but evidently you're too dumb to understand the point.

If I gave you the impression that I was somehow forbidding
you to analyze endgames, I apologize.

No, you didn't.

Go right ahead.

I do.

If you'd
like to discuss the reason for draw rates, please go ahead
with that also.


One of the reasons for draw rates is that chess is a draw, and GMs
understand this (like I already stated, but you're too dumb for it to
have sunk in, evidently).


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.

I never claimed it was news.

So why keep repeating it?

But it is counterevidence to your
claim that draws result because a. perfect chess is a draw (plausible
but not proved) b. GMs play perfectly


It *is* scientifically proved. Read an Informator. GMs don't play
perfectly, but they tend to play well enough, and, crucially, to
understand enough about chess to realise that it is a draw.



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.

It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

No, it isn't. GMs make draws because chess is a draw.

Do you understand why?


Evidently you have no understanding of this.

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.

Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

Sure. I analyse mine all the time, and I analyse others' all the time
too.

You cannot merely assert that "Perfect chess is a draw, and draws
are the result of perfect play" You must show it.


Read an Informator.

Draws can occur for *other* reasons, whether
or not perfect chess is a draw.


Sure. But that *is* off-topic.



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.

I stand corrected. You don't have a coherently argued point.

Wrong. I do, but you're too dumb to grasp even its most basic point,
evidently.