On 22 Mar, 18:22, David Richerby
wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
The initial position is *not* lost for either side. Chess is a
draw. Discuss.

Why bother? Anyone who doesn't accept the ``*fact*'' that chess is
a draw is an illiterate moron and an idiot. You said so, yourself.

Not "anyone", just those who put words in one's mouth, and
stubbornly *refuse* to examine the evidence, and draw from it the
only scientifically reasonable conclusion: chess is a draw.

This isn't science: it's mathematics. I have seen the evidence and I,
like most people, believe that the evidence points towards chess being
a draw. But that is not proof.


Playing chess is *not* like building mathematical models. Informator
is (its creators asserted) an attempt *scientifically* to classify
chess, principally by opening variation. Chess is more science than
mathematics. Scientific proof is fundamentally different from
mathematical proof. Surely you know that? There *is* scientific
*proof* that chess is a draw. It *is* proof. It's not *mathematical*
proof, but since chess is not mathematics, so what? There *is*
scientific proof. If you know of *any* credible evidence which
suggests that chess is not inherently a draw, would you be so good as
to share it? Otherwise, if you intend to keep misreading and missing
the point, would you be so good as to keep stumm?

Mark.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Cheese (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ lump of cheese but it's full of holes!