"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:


But for Evans to be wrong in this case, you have to


Hold on a sec there, junior! I don't have to argue
anything. Evans' analysis *has already been refuted*
by others. More to the point, his comments require
nothing more than an understanding of chess concepts,
and of course, logic, to properly assess. Ideas like
"backpeddling", "shifting ground" and the like require
no special chess analysis skills to recognise, just
being observant. Take for example, the known fact
that both players refused to shake hands, but instead
played on. Had this been completely "dead drawn", as
one ratpacker had it, somebody would have been forced
to extend his hand out of embarassment, if nothing else.
Or maybe they could have gone until stalemate, ignoring
the cameras and spectators.

In particular, the single biggest problem with Evans' many
comments regarding everything Fischer is his inconsistency,
his persistent ground shifting. At one time, Evans correctly
used a thing called logic to cut through the cr*p and tell us
that Fischer himself was responsible for his own premature
retirement from active play. Not long afterward, GM Evans
began to shuffle and dance, telling everyone who would
listen that the evil Russians (who controlled FIDE) were the
real culprits. Had he simply renounced his earlier position,
this would be called having a change of heart. But holding
dearly to every word he has ever written, our man Evans
has created quake after quake, a new dance style, and a
whole lot of contortion and twisting about.


credibly argue that *Fischer* or other strong GMs
were likely to lose it.


Perhaps you need a refresher course in logical thinking.
This strawman of yours may well be fun, but it has no
bearing on the case. Not one poster here has argued
that Fischer "was likely to lose" w/o Bxh2 -- that is, until
you showed up! LOL

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

You want to make an obviously false claim "Evans
lied in his description of the position", be my guest.

But be aware that making stupid and false arguments
in one case undercuts your credibility in all of your
anti-Evans/Parr arguments.

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too much
time looking at kiddie chess.

You want to make an obviously false claim "Evans
lied in his description of the position", be my guest.

But be aware that making stupid and false arguments
in one case undercuts your credibility in all of your
anti-Evans/Parr arguments.

It appears your argument here has undercut your reputation as a person
who understands chess.

help bot wrote:
David Kane wrote:

What do you mean by "advantage"?


See my point? The man doesn't even know what an
advantage is!

Amazing. How can a chessplayer not understand that "I'm better" doesn't
mean "I'm winning?" Or that one can play on and force the opponent to
'prove' the draw.

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game. Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does not in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in chess.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane is sooooo lost here. In fact, my point was
not that Black cannot hold -- that is a "strawman". Building
men of straw and then knocking them down is generally
a waste of time, unless one gets his jollies in the process

Not that it's either here or there ... but reserching through Google, I
noticed Grey Kennedy used the word "strawman" and phrased his
argument similar to you. But that's just a coincidence, eh?

For the record, I do not care whether you are or aren't Mr Kennedy.
Your identity seems to be an issue only with larry parr.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does not in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in chess.

Gee, thanks. I'm sure I'll really benefit from that.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

In fact, I gave an analogous example. I pointed out that many
K+P vs. K endings that are both theoretically and practically
drawn for players of a certain level (even your level),
would, in the hands of 6 year olds, produce a fair number
of wins for the side with the pawn. Didn't you read that?

Of course there are plenty of harder positions in which
GMs might have difficulty achieving the theoretical result.

But the question is whether *the position in game one that
we are discussing* is one of those positions. So far, neither
you nor help bot in your rush to attack Evans have given
any evidence to support that. So when GMs argue from
authority that the position is dead drawn, those
arguments carry the day.

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does not in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in chess.

Gee, thanks. I'm sure I'll really benefit from that.

One can only hope.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

In fact, I gave an analogous example. I pointed out that many
K+P vs. K endings that are both theoretically and practically
drawn for players of a certain level (even your level),
would, in the hands of 6 year olds, produce a fair number
of wins for the side with the pawn. Didn't you read that?

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra piece?


Of course there are plenty of harder positions in which
GMs might have difficulty achieving the theoretical result.

Agreed. Would you play on if you had an advantage in those positions?

But the question is whether *the position in game one that
we are discussing* is one of those positions. So far, neither
you nor help bot in your rush to attack Evans have given
any evidence to support that.

Phil, err, David, would you kindly show me where I "attacked" Evans
over this endgame? I've searched and I can't find it. I'll wait for the
apology.

So when GMs argue from
authority that the position is dead drawn, those
arguments carry the day.

"David Kane" writes:
Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

Why do we say that White has an advantage
in the opening position? Because White *wins*
more often from that position. Period.

In the position under discussion in FS #1, one can say
that both Black and White aren't going to win, so it
would be drawn.