On 22 Mar, 00:01, Mike Murray wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 15:44:46 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"

wrote:
Competitively speaking, a forced mate in 144 is a draw, unless the
ending in question is reached 100 moves in, or something. The trick is
to be able to recognise the fact, which is why GM Nunn's "Secrets..."
books are good.

You may be right at the moment. The powers that be have been futzing
with these extensions to the fifty-move-rule in response to computer
discoveries. I think they've been currently drifting back to the
classic fifty move rules with a couple of exceptions. Anyway, this
isn't a critical issue. In a practical situation, you try to give set
your opponent difficult problems -- if the opponent is God, it won't
work.


Right, and a draw will result, unless you make a losing blunder.

At any rate, since we were arguing against Houlsby's claim that "Every
lost position results from a decisive mistake. No decisive mistake, no
lost position, drawn game", my paragraph cold be rewritten as
"If perfect play results in a forced win..., then the side with the
disadvantage could make no errors and still lose."
which seems to finesse your objection.
No, it doesn't. Dave is right that a lost game is a lost game is a
lost game. The initial position is *not* lost for either side. Chess
is a draw.
Discuss.

Discuss this:http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Why? How is that link relevant? What is fallacious about my examining
a ton of evidence and drawing the *only* scientifically reasonable
conclusion from that evidence?