wrote:
The Historian wrote:

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?

Yes, but I studied Philidor and then Benko. He wrote several good
articles on the win in CL, which showed up in his book of collected
articles.

And a nice book it is. Have you read Mednis on this endgame? Or Nunn in
his Secrets of Pawnless Endings?

There is a popular myth that it is dead drawn.... so I have had many
opponents go for it. One guy bothered me for a draw for 30 moves (the
TD was unsupportive) until I mated him. He claimed it was pure luck;
when I tried to show him what Benko taught me, he just shoved the
pieces into the middle of the board.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results from the
opening position, would we still say that White has an advantage?
No. We conclude from empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than Black, so say that
White has an advantage.

No, still not getting it. If I look in any issue of Informant,
there's hundreds of positions labelled "+/=" or "=/+" scattered
through the various games. Most of these positions have never
appeared in any other game, have never been played more than once, so
it's completely bogus to say there's empirical evidence that White (or
Black) has "won them more often". Most of those positions are in fact
likely to be theoretical draws. And yet, since we should reasonably
presume that the grandmasters annotating those games know what they're
doing, the +/= evaluations must mean SOMETHING.

Exactly. They mean that in the GM's opinion (valued precisely
because GMs have lots of practical experience playing chess)
one side or the other has better *winning* chances. I was
arguing against the help bot position that you can have an
advantage without winning chances.


So I think the
criterion of "empirical evidence that White wins more often" is not
the right one.

Do you maintain that the belief that White has an advantage
is completely unrelated to the fact that White scores better?
That would be truly bizarre.

Basically you are reminding us that there are different
ways to reach a conclusion about the winning chances
in a position. I don't dispute that.

Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Kane" writes:
Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results from the
opening position, would we still say that White has an advantage?
No. We conclude from empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than Black, so say that
White has an advantage.

No, still not getting it. If I look in any issue of Informant,
there's hundreds of positions labelled "+/=" or "=/+" scattered
through the various games. Most of these positions have never
appeared in any other game, have never been played more than once, so
it's completely bogus to say there's empirical evidence that White (or
Black) has "won them more often". Most of those positions are in fact
likely to be theoretical draws. And yet, since we should reasonably
presume that the grandmasters annotating those games know what they're
doing, the +/= evaluations must mean SOMETHING. So I think the
criterion of "empirical evidence that White wins more often" is not
the right one.

Very nice example, Paul. Perhaps you will have better luck with
Chess-citizen Kane than I did.

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

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

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

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?

Heck, I might even be tempted to play out a drawn K+P vs K,
but I wouldn't claim an advantage (unless perhaps I'm playing
one of those 6 year olds).

Do you understand that perhaps there is a difference in skill level
between a basic technical draw in K + P vs K and R + B vs R?

*And* in the position under discussion. Would you rather take
Fischer's position before Bxh2, or the R side of R+B vs. R?

If forced to choose between the two, Fischer's position. White's
advantage is less striking than in the pawnless ending.

But my example is closer to the position under discussion than
your example.

I'm not discussing the position from the Fischer-Spassky match. I am
discussing your statement that there is no having an advantage without
having a win.

Where did I say that?

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

"An advantage is something that
helps you win the game. Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage." - David Foster Kane

David, I thought I gave up replying to this sort of debating technique
when I went on the Innes Wagon. I do so now. Please enjoy arguing chess
theory with Paul Rubin and "helpbot"; I am done with this.

Your logic/reading skills need some work. In the position in question,
help bot (sort of) acknowledged that Spassky had no winning chances but
still claimed that Spassky had an advantage. I did *not* say that
only positions with a forced win can be said to have an advantage.

In fact, I gave a clear cut example showing that I don't
believe a theoretical "best-play" assessment to be the only
factor. Remember the "6 year olds playing a "drawn" KP
vs K ending."?

In your rush to throw out petty insults, you're not paying
very close attention to what is being said. It's a shame
because I think you really could learn something from
the discussion, even if you aren't able to add to
it.

David Kane wrote:

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.


Oversimplification. Tell me, are you working your
way through a standard textbook on invalid reasoning,
or have you managed all this on your own? The latter
would be a very impressive feat, IMO. Sort of like
Fischer's 6-0 victories, but a feat of stupidity, not genius!


-- help bot

The Historian wrote:
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.


IMO, some weakies may simply count up material,
probably something along these lines:

White: B+p+p+p+p+p = 8 points

Black: B+p+p+p+p+p = 8 points

8 = 8 = draw

By contrast, both Fischer and Spassky see much, much
deeper into the position. I seriously doubt that Spassky's
depth of play in this game was the norm; more likely, as
World Champion, he was -- just as when he defeated
Petrosian for the title -- in his prime, or at his best. Look
at the picture where Fischer is covering his face with his
hands: Spassky is deep in thought, working out the win.

BTW, in that shot Fischer has his huge hands sprawled
over his contorted face, and both elbows on the table, which
I for one would have found distracting; this is hardly
surprising, despite claims that he never violated ettiquette,
etc. In vivid contrast, Spassky, whose clock is ticking, is
doing nothing to distract or annoy -- except finding good
moves, that is. This recently happenned to me at GetClub,
and I found the good moves to be *extremely* annoying!

-- help bot

g4 wrote:
"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.


IMO, the word "strawman" comes up in these newsgroups
often, not because I am Grey Kennedy or Vnce Hart, but
because of the myriad appearances of men of straw here.

Note: I bet he/they also quite frequently used terms like
"Larry", "Evans", "lie", "Fischer", and "chess". Does this
prove I am Larry Fischer? :D

And why do you ignore the "real evidence", the syntax
proof? For example, both Mr. Hart and Grey Kennedy
put periods at the end of their sentences, exactly as I do.
They even used commas -- a dead giveaway! :D

Maybe...maybe every poster in this newsgroup is really
Sam Sloan? Especially that g4 -- there is something
awfully suspicious about his handle, but I can't quite put
my finger on it.

-- help bot

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

David Kane wrote:

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.


Oversimplification. Tell me, are you working your
way through a standard textbook on invalid reasoning,
or have you managed all this on your own? The latter
would be a very impressive feat, IMO. Sort of like
Fischer's 6-0 victories, but a feat of stupidity, not genius!


Like saying that a player has no winning
chances, but yet has an advantage??

Or stating that it is a "lie" to claim that the position
is "dead drawn" yet understanding that Black
can easily hold the draw??

Usually you are a funny guy, and those
few times when you have a point you
are worth reading if not always convincing.

But in this case you sound suspiciously
like Larry Parr making his asinine
claim about Taylor Kingston
lying about his rating.

You don't need to go the Parr/Innes/Brennan
route of distortion and misdirection. Just
admit you blew it (it happens - we'll forgive
you) - then get back on track by savaging
Evans et al. for something they really deserve.

David Kane wrote:

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.


Apparently, David Kane is not only too weak to recognise
what an advantage is, he also is an authority man, who
likes the Truth handed to him on a silver platter by some
father (or authority) figure. Here is my response to that
approach: 1) Evans' own analysis of this particular endgame
has already been refuted by his betters. And 2) The question
arises as to why Mr. Kane is so eager to accept the opinion
of just one particular GM (Evans), rather than seek out the
assessment of the very strongest of GMs? Case in point:
Fischer himself has been quoted as describing his play (i.e.
the Bxh2 blunder) like so: "I played like a fish." Even Dr.
Fine, who is often quoted by Evans ratpackers when it suits
their fancy, has noted that Fischer admitted to him that this
move was the result of an oversight -- not any attempt to
play for a win, as the Evans ratpack has presented it. Thus,
we can see that in fact Fischer overlooked his Bishop being
trapped (still!) in the sub-line where White plays K-g4, after
....h3. All this was forseen by Spassky a half-move earlier,
which is one reason I believe he deserves more credit for
this win than the Evans ratpack is willing to allow. Evans'
contortions are in the main, the result of his own personal
biases, which have nothing whatever to do with the real
reasons for blunders in chess.

-- help bot

David Kane wrote:

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?


Poor, poor David Kane. He keeps getting confused, even
on the simplest of issues. SpamScone has not attacked
Evans in this thread, Mr. Kane; nor was it GM Evans who
introduced the term "dead drawn" here -- that was Larry Parr.

I questioned jr as to why he was unwilling to defend Evans'
stance and instead jumped on board with the lead ratpacker,
Larry Parr. He then went mum, possibly fearing that he has
already placed his secret identity in jeapardy. The key in
remembering who said what here is to remember that Evans
is not a direct participant, so it could not have been he who
shifted ground in response to criticisms in this thread. Thus,
it had to be either Larry Parr, or jr (or both). Let's not get too
down on Mr. Kane for this error, as the ratpackers are a
difficult group to keep track of, on account of their many ever-
changing positions on Fischer-related issues. They dance
about.

I knew when I wrote that Evans had lied that this could be
nitpicked. Even so, it was a handy example for the moment.
What all too often happens is, say, a broad claim that Evans
has lied is challenged, and then the first such example given
is picked apart, ignoring that there are numerous others to
take its place. Louis Blair, for instance, has documented a
substantial number of such lies here, and because Evans
and Parr (another such liar) are reluctant to admit mistakes,
these cannot be ignored as mere flubs. Even when
substantive evidence is shown to refute their vicarious claims,
these two turkeys will not back down -- their giant egos will
not allow it. Another example of someone who has
documented Evans' countless errors is Edward Winter, and
these can be found on the Web. Of course, in one article
Winter ridicules GM Evans such that I doubt his piece would
even bother differentiating between the deliberate lies and the
many errors of ignorance and carelessness. Winter did not
target any sinister motives -- only the misstatements of fact
seem to interest him, as a historian. Lies require a deliberate
attempt to deceive, and this is much tougher than pointing to
spelling mistakes.

-- help bot