On Feb 7, 11:01 am, NOSPAM wrote:

jefkto show that chess is a draw (it is, btw).

Liar.

so if world chess champion Anand claims chess is
a draw, he is a liar ?
Sure chess can be a dynamic game sometimes,
whereby the comp evaluation gradually is changing,
but by playing rybka-rybka standard game, not only opening
theory is improved , but the better it gets, the more drawish
the game seems to become.

who cares about a mathematical proof; can you
eg prove the Newtonion law action = minus reaction ?
scientific progress consists of paradigm shifts..

By claiming that chess still could be solved in the sense that its
a win for white, people are defying centuries of chess theory
whereby it's known that long succesful combinations
usually only can be made after sufficient positional
advantage has been built up. saying that a move as eg.
1 f3 *could* be the winning move simply is ridiculous
and that black could also be winning is even more crazy

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, loser.

easy to resort to name calling when your posting anonymously,
isnt it; haven't they told you sometimes you got bad manners ?
(an American i presume; but even worse, you probably
cannot play chess at all, judging from your posting)

Then don't make claims of a mathematical/logical
nature that you can't prove.

well i dont have to; i'm a physicist, and draw my
conclusions from empirical facts. i've played *many*
slow comp-comp blitz games on a fast comp, analyzed
in detail the resulting book/database, also played
and investigated full length standard comp-comp games
with novelties, at least for the most drawish book lines..

anyway, i might be back a few months later on the
more decent icdchess forum, instead of this usenet,
and hopefully with some examples, and/or more
arguments to support my empirical 'hunch' that chess is a
draw; until then, others (feel free to try) can of course try to
falsify this by finding winning lines for white
against any possible defence for black..

good luck..

PS according to 'philosopher' P.Feyerabend Galileo Galilei
has not really 'proven' that the earth is revolving around
the sun (well it does, doesn it; any mathematical solution
or hypothesis describing real world eg with Newtonian mechanics
should be a simple as possible; you always extend it later
with general relativity, but thats makes not much difference )
Also according to this 'philosopher' astrology and witchcraft
are just as valid thought systems as mainstream science.
well i wonder then how this bloke got his degree..