On 27 Mar, 01:53, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...



Why it is the underlying reason is that:

1) chess is a closed system (as I have said already)
2) each side has equal forces, arranged symmetrically (which is
obvious even to a five-year-old)
3) white is only half a move ahead at the start, which is insufficient
to win by force, and certainly very insufficient to lose by force.

If you know different... give your analysis.

Contrary to your absurd trolling assertion, above, all of these things
have been asserted before, by me.

Those things might be reasons for perfectly played
chess leading to a draw, but they don't explain
the observed draw rates. e.g. each of these alleged
factors is present for both humans and computers,
yet they have completely different draw rates.


The differing draw rates for computers is that in general there is a
big disparity between the effective playing strengths of the two sides
(as I already explained).

We've already established that *several* factors *contribute* to human
draw rates, but the FACT that chess is a draw is the underlying
reason.

As has been pointed out numerous times, cluelessly
saying the same thing over and over is evidence
of absolutely nothing.

Quantum mechanics explains just about everything to do with
matter/light etc. You have not been able to use your
"chess is a draw" theory to explain a single thing.

It's not a theory, it's a fact. It explains that chess is a draw. That
is a single thing. Therefore, you're wrong. Still.

That's just repeating your hypothesis. "Chess is a draw. That
explains why chess is a draw."


No, you can't read. The reason why chess is a draw is that:

1) it is a closed system
2) it consists of two sides of equal forces
3) neither side has a significant advantage at the beginning.
4) if neither side goes badly wrong, neither side can win.

No possibility at all.

That's the *explanation* part, ****WIT.

ALL the evidence supports this explanation of how chess works. All of
it.

How many times do you need to be told this before it sinks in,
****WIT?

Evolution/quantum mechanics provide explanations
for a vast array of important questions.


Yes, and the former is likely a good explanation. The latter may or
may not be (the jury is still out).



Scientifically, you've got a reasonable hypothesis that
has not yet been shown to have any bearing on the
matter under discussion. I'm sorry if you don't like
that.

Oh, but it does. If chess were a win for white there would be fewer
draws. (Like I already stated, illiterate moron).

Supply some evidence for this. (Restating something is not evidence)


Restating EVIDENCE is evidence. Jesus you're an illiterate.

It's called INFORMATOR, ****wit.

Weren't you suspicious when the Creationists offered to pay
you to argue the "scientific" position?

Creationists are not scientific. Informator is scientific. It's east
to tell that Informator is scientific: evaluations are constantly
refined and tweaked.

Not Creationism. That's set in stone. Take it or leave it.

You convey the impression of your being completely clueless about
science, the nature of research, the nature of paradigms, all that.

We've established that you're a moron. The only remaining question is:
exactly *how* moronic are you? This one could run and run, and the
longer it runs, the more moronic you *become*.

Wanna try again?