On Feb 21, 3:24 am, "Jason 911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

No, because the initial position can never arise with black to move.
Nobody knows if it's a zugzwang for White.

That is faulty logic.

No, you're the idiot with the faulty logic "help boy". Anyone with a 7 year
old's level of reading comprehension

The creature known as Jason Repa clearly is lacking a proper
education in this area, the area of "logic and reason".

Here, for the record, is a simplified explanation which, it is
hoped, even the lowly creatures and simpletons might at least
begin to be able to comprehend:

----------

In order for the idea above to be considered "valid" from the
logical standpoint, it would be *necessary* for his stated reason
to be "true", and otherwise in all cases the "conclusion" to be
"false". This is so on account of him using the term "because".
Had he not used that term, I obviously would have responded
very differently.

In sum, he argued:

1) that the initial position in chess can not be a mutual
zugzwang, *unless* it is the case that Black can achieve
the identical position while having the move.

2) In addition, he argued that Black can in fact *not*
achieve the same position, while having the move.

And, *combining* these two conditions, he "concluded"
that no, it cannot be mutual zugzwang.

Of course, this is obviously a gross error, for there is
at least one other way for the initial position to be a
mutual zugzwang, and I dare say he quite carelessly
overlooked the possibility.




The initial position can NEVER arise with black to move.

Quite irrelevant, whether or not it may be true.

To sum up, both Mr. Richerby AND the imbecile known
as Jason Repa have much to learn about logic and reason.

Yet I imagine the creature will have grave difficulties in
learning anything, as it displays a certain lack of mental
faculty, along with a disposition which is anything but
conducive to learning. How unfortunate, for the creature
obviously has so much to learn!

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 21, 3:18 am, "Jason 911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

If that were the case, i think you'd see black win a higher % of the
time
instead of white, no?

Assumes perfect or near-perfect play by humans

Not at all simpleton.

Ad hominem diversionary tactic noted.

You learned a new term today eh? Not bad for an idiot. But as typical idiots
go you're unable to understand what the term means as the vast majority of
your psuedo "argument" is pure ad-hominem drivel such as your juvenile
suggestion that my "mating" Keven Gentes "on the board" as was clearly
stated, has something to do with having sex with him. This could also, in
your case, be a form of "projection" (another new term for you to learn) as
you've made your latent homosexuality quite obvious to the readers here.

I know you're not a very bright kid, but read over my post s.l.o.w.l.y and
hopefully some of it will sink in.


If after tens of thousands of games white is winning by a greater
margin,
then statistically white has the advantage.

Indeed, the original question had naught to do with statistics

Actually you're wrong. Statistics is a method for gaining insight in such
issues. Current tablebase depth and chess engine technology are not
sufficient to provide concrete answers at this point. Again, kid, you're the
one making the assumptions here. This is way over your head son.


I think,

This was your first error kid......trying to "think". It's like a dog trying
to speak. Sometimes they come close but......

pertaining to the
idea of *perfect play* by both sides.

Nope, you better learn how to read and lay off the pot for awhile because
your comprehension and short term memory leave a great deal to be desired.
I'll refresh your memory son. The original thread question was:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual zugzwang?

Did you look up the word "zugzwang" yet help bitch? You obviously don't know
what it means. I'll spell it out for you in the way an idiot like yourself
can understand.

Zugzwang isn't conditional on whether or not the play is "perfect" or "less
than perfect" it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Zugzwang means that
regardless of the play, there is no move that can be made such that the
position does not worsen. Is some of this sinking in yet?



ps, I've mated both Kevin (on the board), and his late wife (off the
board)

FYI: Having sexual relations with a male....

FYI, how incredibly dumb do you have to be to not understand the phrase
"on
the board" you degenerate faggot?

Just *where* the creature that calls itself Jason Repa conducts his
"affairs" is of no concern to me;

More ad-hominem attacks from the hypocrite idiot that cries like a baby when
people attack him. It's quite hillarious how you just DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED
yourself, even in the very same post.

And you are of absolutely no concern whatsoever to anybody here (except for
your alternate ID's, lol), nor do you speak for anyone here other than
yourself "help boy". Nobody here could care less what your opinion is on
anything.


I would like to point out that, were we to
compile a large database of games played between strong chess
programs, even so we would not be able to address the poster's
true question,

Actually it would. The only thing you're pointing out here is that you have
a very modest IQ and are unable to think outside of the box. As I stated
before, we don't, at this stage, have technology such as 32 piece
tablebases, or some supercomputer that could crunch the sufficient # of
nodes such to concretely determine the absolute evaluation of the starting
position in chess. But we can gain insight into what is likely to be the
case using statistical analysis. Insurance companies, the stock market, and
all casinos utilize this type of information in order to conduct their
business.

JMR

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 21, 3:24 am, "Jason 911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

No, because the initial position can never arise with black to move.
Nobody knows if it's a zugzwang for White.

That is faulty logic.

No, you're the idiot with the faulty logic "help boy". Anyone with a 7
year
old's level of reading comprehension

The creature known as Jason Repa

More ad-hominem attacks from the idiot named "help bitch" because he's
getting frustrated and feels mentally helpless. This kid is the biggest
hypocrite i've ever met. He whines and cries like a baby when people attack
him, but most of his drivel is pure, gratuitous personal attacks on others.


2) In addition, he argued that Black can in fact *not*
achieve the same position, while having the move.

And this is true you sub-verbal cretin idiot. What part of this is STILL not
sinking into your tiny, FAS-infested brain?

And try to get this concept into your mellon head "help boy"......you're of
NO help WHATSOEVER to anyone here and nobody would care if you fell off the
face of the earth.

JMR

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article 5MXCh.4112$2w.1396@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

There is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the
opening position is better for white. Namely, the consistently higher
winning percentage of white, combined with the fact that developed
theory - a huge amount of practical knowledge - shows a fairly
persistent white advantage.

But you eliminated the likely cause of this from my post [which are
really
the comments of Adorjan] - which are expectations from both white and
black
player. Do you understand this pyschology, which has sociological
outcome:-

I understand the principle, I just happen to think it's irrelevant in
this case. You (or, rather, Adorjan) are assuming a possible reason for
black's poorer results, and then, without any evidence are asserting it
to be true.

He has written 3 books on 'no evidence'. Ever read any of them? And he was a
tutor to Kasparov and Leko.

I think there's a much simpler reason for black's worse results: white
is better. Talk any mainline position, eight moves in. Heck, even the
ones which are theoretically equal (say, some QGD stuff, or Italian Game
stuff) are much easier for white to play. It's equal because, with best
play, black gets a draw - but black has plenty of places to go wrong
compared to white, and much bigger practical problems.

In your 'some QDG stuff' example, your decide if black if white is better or
worse by the chances to go wrong, rather than chances to go right?

In USA 1860 all doctors were male, in 2000 55% of graduating MDs were
female. A sociology! And another one based on a negative expectation,
'that
women would not like the sight of blood'.

I think you're trivializing a major sociological trend. The issue with
women in the workplace has always been one of opportunity as much as it
has been one of expectation.

They are the 'black' people, no? Is this trivial to you. I hardly think your
comment Germaine [pun intended]

a) Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted?
or
b) can it be shown to be unprovable?

I know they are hard questions, and its okay to say 'dunno', but changing
the question is avoidance. Both questions reveal something about the
state-of-the-art in 'solving chess' as well as in complex games theory.

Fine:

I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

Thank you then, for an honest statement. I am not sure I wish to continue
arguing an issue with someone who doesn't know or doesn't care, except to
say that my questions remain unanswered.

Phil Innes

I am not sure I wish to continue arguing an issue with someone who doesn't
know or doesn't care, except to say that my questions remain unanswered.

Up to your same old tactics eh ol' geezer? Why don't you tell everyone here
why you've cowardly avoided playing rated chess for over ten years? Your
last published rating was barely over 2000. Do you think anyone believes
you're worth anything near that now?

JMR

On Feb 21, 4:51 pm, "Jason 911" wrote:

The hideous creature known as Jason Repa bleated:

If after tens of thousands of games white is winning by a greater
margin,
then statistically white has the advantage.

Indeed, the original question had naught to do with statistics

Actually you're wrong. Statistics is a method for gaining insight in such
issues.

Missing the point entirely; clearly, the compilation of
statistics for games between humans is far afield of the
real issue, which was of course the theoretical perfect
play, and whether or not White and/or Black was in a
state of zugzwang given *perfect* play. (It goes without
saying that, in a game between imbeciles -- say, the
Repa creature and Sanny's weakest level -- both sides
are perpetually in a state of mutual zugzwang.)


The original thread question was:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual zugzwang?

Very good! You're not *quite* as dumb as you look,
after all.

Zugzwang isn't conditional on whether or not the play is "perfect" or "less
than perfect" it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Zugzwang means that
regardless of the play, there is no move that can be made such that the
position does not worsen. Is some of this sinking in yet?

That's not a bad attempt -- for an imbecile, I mean.

But although it may be too complex for the creature
to comprehend, the idea is that in order to determine
whether or not there is a "mutual zugzwang", we need
to basically solve the game (or else come up with
something like "perfect play" as a tool. Very complex,
you know. Otherwise, we are doing what is quite often
termed "shooting in the dark". Again, quite beyond the
grasp of the lower creatures (pity them all).


ps, I've mated both Kevin (on the board), and his late wife (off the
board)

Do we really *need* to know the sordid details of the
creature's love life? Certainly not, IMO.


Actually it would. The only thing you're pointing out here is that you have
a very modest IQ and are unable to think outside of the box.

Speaking of the box, however did you manage to get
out? I mean, doesn't your keeper use a lock, a latch,
or something of that sort to ensure your own safety?
It is inadvisable for creatures like you to be out and
about unsupervised, where you may inadvertently
place yourselves in harm's way (not that it would be
any real loss to the world if harm were to befall you).

-- help bot

On Feb 21, 5:11 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Ron" wrote in message

In article 5MXCh.4112$2w.1396@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

There is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the
opening position is better for white. Namely, the consistently higher
winning percentage of white, combined with the fact that developed
theory - a huge amount of practical knowledge - shows a fairly
persistent white advantage.

But you eliminated the likely cause of this from my post [which are
really
the comments of Adorjan] - which are expectations from both white and
black
player. Do you understand this pyschology, which has sociological
outcome:-

I understand the principle, I just happen to think it's irrelevant in
this case. You (or, rather, Adorjan) are assuming a possible reason for
black's poorer results, and then, without any evidence are asserting it
to be true.

He has written 3 books on 'no evidence'. Ever read any of them? And he was a
tutor to Kasparov and Leko.

I think there's a much simpler reason for black's worse results: white
is better. Talk any mainline position, eight moves in. Heck, even the
ones which are theoretically equal (say, some QGD stuff, or Italian Game
stuff) are much easier for white to play. It's equal because, with best
play, black gets a draw - but black has plenty of places to go wrong
compared to white, and much bigger practical problems.

In your 'some QDG stuff' example, your decide if black if white is better or
worse by the chances to go wrong, rather than chances to go right?

In USA 1860 all doctors were male, in 2000 55% of graduating MDs were
female. A sociology! And another one based on a negative expectation,
'that
women would not like the sight of blood'.

I think you're trivializing a major sociological trend. The issue with
women in the workplace has always been one of opportunity as much as it
has been one of expectation.

They are the 'black' people, no? Is this trivial to you. I hardly think your
comment Germaine [pun intended]

a) Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted?
or
b) can it be shown to be unprovable?

I know they are hard questions, and its okay to say 'dunno', but changing
the question is avoidance. Both questions reveal something about the
state-of-the-art in 'solving chess' as well as in complex games theory.

Fine:

I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

Thank you then, for an honest statement. I am not sure I wish to continue
arguing an issue with someone who doesn't know or doesn't care, except to
say that my questions remain unanswered.

Phil

Oh, would you please stop this arguing with yourself!
The one of you ought to know better, especially at your age.

Let it suffice that the "Rob" identity has thrown its games
to your regular handle, ChessOne.

And please get it straight that no, White is not so much
better as to explain the whole advantage in his score,
which obviously is influenced in part by the greater
expectation of winning, or how we are taught to expect
less as Black, such as a draw being considered just fine.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 21, 4:51 pm, "Jason 911" wrote:

The hideous creature known as Jason Repa bleated:

If after tens of thousands of games white is winning by a greater
margin,
then statistically white has the advantage.

Indeed, the original question had naught to do with statistics

Actually you're wrong. Statistics is a method for gaining insight in such
issues.

clearly, the compilation of
statistics for games between humans

Again the imbecile named "help bitch" is making assumptions, thereby adding
even more weight to the suggestion that this topic is way over his melon
head. I didn't say that this compilation was going to be exclusively games
between humans. I didn't say the word "human" at all you clueless ****.
You're totally incapable of even the most rudimentary logic and reasoning.



and whether or not White and/or Black was in a
state of zugzwang given *perfect* play.

I just finished explaining to this worthless idiot what zugzwang is and he
STILL doesn't get it?! How could this loser be this unbelievably stupid yet
have access to the internet?



The original thread question was:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual zugzwang?

Very good! You're not *quite* as dumb as you look,
after all.

Zugzwang isn't conditional on whether or not the play is "perfect" or
"less
than perfect" it has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Zugzwang means
that
regardless of the play, there is no move that can be made such that the
position does not worsen. Is some of this sinking in yet?

That's not a bad attempt -- for an imbecile, I mean.

the idea is that in order to determine
whether or not there is a "mutual zugzwang", we need
to basically solve the game (or else come up with
something like "perfect play" as a tool.

No we don't you braindead little ninny. Review my explanation of what
zugzwang is several times. Get an adult to assist you with any difficult
words.

Seriously help bitch.....were you dropped on your head frequently as a
child?

JMR

On Feb 21, 5:15 pm, "Jason 911" wrote:

I am not sure I wish to continue arguing an issue with someone who doesn't
know or doesn't care, except to say that my questions remain unanswered.

Up to your same old tactics eh ol' geezer? Why don't you tell everyone here
why you've cowardly avoided playing rated chess for over ten years? Your
last published rating was barely over 2000. Do you think anyone believes
you're worth anything near that now?


Analysis:

The creature known as Jason Repa seems to wish for a
"showdown at sunset" with the writer of the top part quoted
above, namely IM Innes. My take is that it feels it has
little to lose, for even if it were to lose such a match, it
could reverse course and say it lost to a nearly-an-IM,
which is no big deal. OTOH, were the creature to somehow
win, it would be seen as boosting the creature's status
immensely, and this would in turn feed the creature's
overblown ego all the more.

An interesting match-up, indeed; yet I somehow feel
that it would be more appropriate for the creature to first
test its mettle against someone like, say, Sam Sloan.
Perhaps the creature could find "common ground" in a
few of Mr. Sloan's famous, ah, pursuits?

In any case, it is interesting that a creature so low and so
poorly educated, can nevertheless appear to demonstrate
a remarkable skill at the game of chess! This I find very
interesting, if also a bit disturbing.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 21, 5:15 pm, "Jason 911" wrote:

I am not sure I wish to continue arguing an issue with someone who
doesn't
know or doesn't care, except to say that my questions remain
unanswered.

Up to your same old tactics eh ol' geezer? Why don't you tell everyone
here
why you've cowardly avoided playing rated chess for over ten years? Your
last published rating was barely over 2000. Do you think anyone believes
you're worth anything near that now?


I'm actually higher rated than Innes and much stronger. There's a reason he
hasn't played rated chess in ten years.

As usual help bitch, your ability to "analyze" is tantamount to a turtle
stuck on it's back You're so helpless it's pathetic!

You're another loser that can't play serious chess so you've become a
mouthpiece usenet troll.

JMR