On 15 Mar, 16:09, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 14 Mar, 15:40, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

groups.com...

It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

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

So you say, but you haven't offered *one* piece of evidence
in support of that.

Sure I have, but you're evidently too dumb to have noticed. Read an
Informator. Read the archive.

Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

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

Wrong answer. I will repeat the question for you and make it
even more explicit. Why are errors in draws important *to
the question of why there are so many draws in GM chess*?

Got it now?

Now that you've asked the question you meant to ask, I have it.

Do try to write more carefully.

The answer is that it's the wrong question. The errors are *not*
important in that context.

Wrong answer.

No, it isn't, it's correct. You're mistaken.

They are. Drawn games which contain errors
cannot be explained your "perfect play in chess is a draw and
GMs play perfectly theory".


I said no such thing, you illiterate moron. I indicated that *with
perfect play chess is a draw* and that, knowing this, GMs are content
to draw. That's all. No mention of perfect play *by GMs*. Idiot.



What *is* important is that chess is a draw. Read an Informator. Read
the archive.

And please try to remember that repeating what is to be shown
over and over isn't evidence. Neither is a vague reference to
some Informator authority. I feel like I'm arguing evolution with
a fundamentalist.

You mean a fundamentalist advocate of the theory of evolution?

Read an Informator. Every lost position results from a decisive
mistake. No decisive mistake, no lost position, drawn game. It's very
simple.

You have set yourself up to be the high priest of chess'
draw-worshipping religion.

I have done no such thing. I have merely pointed out that GMs know
that chess is a draw, and so they draw a lot. You're a moron.

You read something in the
Bible (Informator) that you didn't fully understand
but which you *believe* nonetheless.

Demonstrate that I didn't fully understand it, but learn to read
first. One way to demonstrate that I didn't fully understand it is to
find a game in an Informator which leads to a lost position for one
side or the other and *does not* contain a decisive mistake.

Your belief is so
strong that you need no longer be bothered
with trifles like logic and evidence.

On the contrary, I am *using* logic and evidence. Unlike you.

And of course, like a true
believer, you want to hear nothing of *alternate* explanations
for the observed phenomena and attack those of us who
bring up blasphemies like evidence.


What evidence is that?

A simple question. List as many of the possible reasons
for draws between GMs you can think of *and* the
empirical evidence necessary to confirm *each* one.

Why should I do that? I have stated that GMs' knowing that chess is a
draw is a reason for them to draw. That's all. I have also stated that
another reason for draws is lack of material, or (non-decisive)
zugzwang. Then there's threefold repetition. Then the 50 move rule.
What exactly is your point?

My guess is that your fundamentalist perspective will
make it impossible for you to do so, or even try.

Well, you're not often right, but you're wrong again. Moron.

I predict
you will have the same mindless reply you have had throughout
this thread - "read the Bible". In fact, this is not
a trivial exercize - it requires a great deal of thought
to do well.


No ****, Sherlock. If you'd do your homework and read the archive,
you'd quickly learn that I *have* given this a great deal of thought.
Unlike you, I've spent the time well, too.

By the way, I did scan the archive and can see that your
fundamentalism goes way back. I did find a well-put
phrase by Mike Murray which is worth
repeating. I hope he forgives me for removing it from its
context.

"A solvable problem domain can remain a source of
interesting human competition, if the solution is
not accessible to the competitors.

So chess, as a human activity, has *no* expected
outcome, regardless of the theoretical solvability
of chess as a formal system."

That's a very interesting choice of quote for you to have cited. The
problem is that since chess is a closed system it *does* have an
expected outcome, and that expected outcome is a draw.

You really need to learn to read, then learn to examine evidence, then
learn to think.

Moron.