"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 13 Mar, 23:16, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...

On 13 Mar, 22:18, "David Kane" wrote:

So you know these tablebases better than a super-GM, do you? You play
them perfectly? I'm impressed.

Why would I need to know them in order to determine that
the players blundered?

You wouldn't. It's just a good idea, in general, to understand stuff,
instead of looking it up.

I can just look them up.

Yes, you can, but do you understand what you're looking up?


Why
can't you do the same?


I can, but I prefer to *analyse* the position and check my analysis
against perfect play.



Just look it up.
The result (once down to 6 pieces) went from
draw - win - draw -win. That's the 3 errors.

Uh huh. Again... you're missing the point.

Apparently. What was your point?

Analysing and learning endgames is good. Merely looking them up is
pointless.

And this has what to do with draw rates???? Please try to stay on
topic. If I gave you the impression that I was somehow forbidding
you to analyze endgames, I apologize. Go right ahead. If you'd
like to discuss the reason for draw rates, please go ahead
with that also.


My point was that
in positions simple enough for the tablebase to have
been calculated, the world's best players blunder.

Yes, it was, several posts ago. Several posts ago I pointed out that
this is hardly news.

I never claimed it was news. But it is counterevidence to your
claim that draws result because a. perfect chess is a draw (plausible
but not proved) b. GMs play perfectly



The
(unproven) factor you're basing your argument on ("chess
is a draw") wasn't enough to lead to a draw in the
example, so why should it be in the fuller more complex
game?


All decisive games contain a decisive mistake. Discuss. But please do
your homework first, instead of merely reiterating what you've already
asserted.

It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates. Do you understand why?

snipped

Pick a decisive game that wasn't decided by zeitnot. Demonstrate that
there wasn't a decisive error which led to the loss. It's pretty
simple.

Drawn games *also* contain errors.

Sure. Does perfect play? Discuss.

Do you understand why errors in draws are important?
You cannot merely assert that "Perfect chess is a draw, and draws
are the result of perfect play" You must show it.

Draws can occur for *other* reasons, whether
or not perfect chess is a draw.



As I've said, even if you
prove that chess is a draw (I'm not holding my breath),
that does *not* make the case that it is responsible for draw
rates.

No, but GMs' *knowing* that chess is a draw does. Like I already said.

If GMs had the 32-piece tablebase memorized (like
Tic-Tac-Toe players) then you'd have a point.


In that case chess would have been solved. I have a point in any case.
Prove that I don't.

I stand corrected. You don't have a coherently argued point.

On 14 Mar, 00:25, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 13 Mar, 23:16, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 13 Mar, 22:18, "David Kane" wrote:

So you know these tablebases better than a super-GM, do you? You play
them perfectly? I'm impressed.

Why would I need to know them in order to determine that
the players blundered?

You wouldn't. It's just a good idea, in general, to understand stuff,
instead of looking it up.

I can just look them up.

Yes, you can, but do you understand what you're looking up?

Why
can't you do the same?

I can, but I prefer to *analyse* the position and check my analysis
against perfect play.

Just look it up.
The result (once down to 6 pieces) went from
draw - win - draw -win. That's the 3 errors.

Uh huh. Again... you're missing the point.

Apparently. What was your point?

Analysing and learning endgames is good. Merely looking them up is
pointless.

And this has what to do with draw rates????

Well, you see, chess is a draw. Any serious and even approximately
accurate analysis points to this.

Please try to stay on
topic.

I am on topic, but evidently you're too dumb to understand the point.

If I gave you the impression that I was somehow forbidding
you to analyze endgames, I apologize.

No, you didn't.

Go right ahead.

I do.

If you'd
like to discuss the reason for draw rates, please go ahead
with that also.


One of the reasons for draw rates is that chess is a draw, and GMs
understand this (like I already stated, but you're too dumb for it to
have sunk in, evidently).


My point was that
in positions simple enough for the tablebase to have
been calculated, the world's best players blunder.

Yes, it was, several posts ago. Several posts ago I pointed out that
this is hardly news.

I never claimed it was news.

So why keep repeating it?

But it is counterevidence to your
claim that draws result because a. perfect chess is a draw (plausible
but not proved) b. GMs play perfectly


It *is* scientifically proved. Read an Informator. GMs don't play
perfectly, but they tend to play well enough, and, crucially, to
understand enough about chess to realise that it is a draw.



The
(unproven) factor you're basing your argument on ("chess
is a draw") wasn't enough to lead to a draw in the
example, so why should it be in the fuller more complex
game?

All decisive games contain a decisive mistake. Discuss. But please do
your homework first, instead of merely reiterating what you've already
asserted.

It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

No, it isn't. GMs make draws because chess is a draw.

Do you understand why?


Evidently you have no understanding of this.

snipped

Pick a decisive game that wasn't decided by zeitnot. Demonstrate that
there wasn't a decisive error which led to the loss. It's pretty
simple.

Drawn games *also* contain errors.

Sure. Does perfect play? Discuss.

Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

Sure. I analyse mine all the time, and I analyse others' all the time
too.

You cannot merely assert that "Perfect chess is a draw, and draws
are the result of perfect play" You must show it.


Read an Informator.

Draws can occur for *other* reasons, whether
or not perfect chess is a draw.


Sure. But that *is* off-topic.



As I've said, even if you
prove that chess is a draw (I'm not holding my breath),
that does *not* make the case that it is responsible for draw
rates.

No, but GMs' *knowing* that chess is a draw does. Like I already said.

If GMs had the 32-piece tablebase memorized (like
Tic-Tac-Toe players) then you'd have a point.

In that case chess would have been solved. I have a point in any case.
Prove that I don't.

I stand corrected. You don't have a coherently argued point.

Wrong. I do, but you're too dumb to grasp even its most basic point,
evidently.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...


It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

No, it isn't. GMs make draws because chess is a draw.

So you say, but you haven't offered *one* piece of evidence
in support of that.



Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

Sure. I analyse mine all the time, and I analyse others' all the time
too.


Wrong answer. I will repeat the question for you and make it
even more explicit. Why are errors in draws important *to
the question of why there are so many draws in GM chess*?

Got it now?

And please try to remember that repeating what is to be shown
over and over isn't evidence. Neither is a vague reference to
some Informator authority. I feel like I'm arguing evolution with
a fundamentalist.

On 14 Mar, 15:40, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...



It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

No, it isn't. GMs make draws because chess is a draw.

So you say, but you haven't offered *one* piece of evidence
in support of that.


Sure I have, but you're evidently too dumb to have noticed. Read an
Informator. Read the archive.



Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

Sure. I analyse mine all the time, and I analyse others' all the time
too.

Wrong answer. I will repeat the question for you and make it
even more explicit. Why are errors in draws important *to
the question of why there are so many draws in GM chess*?

Got it now?


Now that you've asked the question you meant to ask, I have it.

Do try to write more carefully.

The answer is that it's the wrong question. The errors are *not*
important in that context.

What *is* important is that chess is a draw. Read an Informator. Read
the archive.

And please try to remember that repeating what is to be shown
over and over isn't evidence. Neither is a vague reference to
some Informator authority. I feel like I'm arguing evolution with
a fundamentalist.

You mean a fundamentalist advocate of the theory of evolution?

Read an Informator. Every lost position results from a decisive
mistake. No decisive mistake, no lost position, drawn game. It's very
simple.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 14 Mar, 15:40, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...



It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

No, it isn't. GMs make draws because chess is a draw.

So you say, but you haven't offered *one* piece of evidence
in support of that.


Sure I have, but you're evidently too dumb to have noticed. Read an
Informator. Read the archive.



Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

Sure. I analyse mine all the time, and I analyse others' all the time
too.

Wrong answer. I will repeat the question for you and make it
even more explicit. Why are errors in draws important *to
the question of why there are so many draws in GM chess*?

Got it now?


Now that you've asked the question you meant to ask, I have it.

Do try to write more carefully.

The answer is that it's the wrong question. The errors are *not*
important in that context.

Wrong answer. They are. Drawn games which contain errors
cannot be explained your "perfect play in chess is a draw and
GMs play perfectly theory".


What *is* important is that chess is a draw. Read an Informator. Read
the archive.

And please try to remember that repeating what is to be shown
over and over isn't evidence. Neither is a vague reference to
some Informator authority. I feel like I'm arguing evolution with
a fundamentalist.

You mean a fundamentalist advocate of the theory of evolution?

Read an Informator. Every lost position results from a decisive
mistake. No decisive mistake, no lost position, drawn game. It's very
simple.


You have set yourself up to be the high priest of chess'
draw-worshipping religion. You read something in the
Bible (Informator) that you didn't fully understand
but which you *believe* nonetheless. Your belief is so
strong that you need no longer be bothered
with trifles like logic and evidence. And of course, like a true
believer, you want to hear nothing of *alternate* explanations
for the observed phenomena and attack those of us who
bring up blasphemies like evidence.

A simple question. List as many of the possible reasons
for draws between GMs you can think of *and* the
empirical evidence necessary to confirm *each* one.
My guess is that your fundamentalist perspective will
make it impossible for you to do so, or even try. I predict
you will have the same mindless reply you have had throughout
this thread - "read the Bible". In fact, this is not
a trivial exercize - it requires a great deal of thought
to do well.

By the way, I did scan the archive and can see that your
fundamentalism goes way back. I did find a well-put
phrase by Mike Murray which is worth
repeating. I hope he forgives me for removing it from its
context.

"A solvable problem domain can remain a source of
interesting human competition, if the solution is
not accessible to the competitors.

So chess, as a human activity, has *no* expected
outcome, regardless of the theoretical solvability
of chess as a formal system."

On 15 Mar, 16:09, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 14 Mar, 15:40, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

groups.com...

It is irrelevant to the issue of draw rates.

No, it isn't. GMs make draws because chess is a draw.

So you say, but you haven't offered *one* piece of evidence
in support of that.

Sure I have, but you're evidently too dumb to have noticed. Read an
Informator. Read the archive.

Do you understand why errors in draws are important?

Sure. I analyse mine all the time, and I analyse others' all the time
too.

Wrong answer. I will repeat the question for you and make it
even more explicit. Why are errors in draws important *to
the question of why there are so many draws in GM chess*?

Got it now?

Now that you've asked the question you meant to ask, I have it.

Do try to write more carefully.

The answer is that it's the wrong question. The errors are *not*
important in that context.

Wrong answer.

No, it isn't, it's correct. You're mistaken.

They are. Drawn games which contain errors
cannot be explained your "perfect play in chess is a draw and
GMs play perfectly theory".


I said no such thing, you illiterate moron. I indicated that *with
perfect play chess is a draw* and that, knowing this, GMs are content
to draw. That's all. No mention of perfect play *by GMs*. Idiot.



What *is* important is that chess is a draw. Read an Informator. Read
the archive.

And please try to remember that repeating what is to be shown
over and over isn't evidence. Neither is a vague reference to
some Informator authority. I feel like I'm arguing evolution with
a fundamentalist.

You mean a fundamentalist advocate of the theory of evolution?

Read an Informator. Every lost position results from a decisive
mistake. No decisive mistake, no lost position, drawn game. It's very
simple.

You have set yourself up to be the high priest of chess'
draw-worshipping religion.

I have done no such thing. I have merely pointed out that GMs know
that chess is a draw, and so they draw a lot. You're a moron.

You read something in the
Bible (Informator) that you didn't fully understand
but which you *believe* nonetheless.

Demonstrate that I didn't fully understand it, but learn to read
first. One way to demonstrate that I didn't fully understand it is to
find a game in an Informator which leads to a lost position for one
side or the other and *does not* contain a decisive mistake.

Your belief is so
strong that you need no longer be bothered
with trifles like logic and evidence.

On the contrary, I am *using* logic and evidence. Unlike you.

And of course, like a true
believer, you want to hear nothing of *alternate* explanations
for the observed phenomena and attack those of us who
bring up blasphemies like evidence.


What evidence is that?

A simple question. List as many of the possible reasons
for draws between GMs you can think of *and* the
empirical evidence necessary to confirm *each* one.

Why should I do that? I have stated that GMs' knowing that chess is a
draw is a reason for them to draw. That's all. I have also stated that
another reason for draws is lack of material, or (non-decisive)
zugzwang. Then there's threefold repetition. Then the 50 move rule.
What exactly is your point?

My guess is that your fundamentalist perspective will
make it impossible for you to do so, or even try.

Well, you're not often right, but you're wrong again. Moron.

I predict
you will have the same mindless reply you have had throughout
this thread - "read the Bible". In fact, this is not
a trivial exercize - it requires a great deal of thought
to do well.


No ****, Sherlock. If you'd do your homework and read the archive,
you'd quickly learn that I *have* given this a great deal of thought.
Unlike you, I've spent the time well, too.

By the way, I did scan the archive and can see that your
fundamentalism goes way back. I did find a well-put
phrase by Mike Murray which is worth
repeating. I hope he forgives me for removing it from its
context.

"A solvable problem domain can remain a source of
interesting human competition, if the solution is
not accessible to the competitors.

So chess, as a human activity, has *no* expected
outcome, regardless of the theoretical solvability
of chess as a formal system."

That's a very interesting choice of quote for you to have cited. The
problem is that since chess is a closed system it *does* have an
expected outcome, and that expected outcome is a draw.

You really need to learn to read, then learn to examine evidence, then
learn to think.

Moron.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 15 Mar, 16:09, "David Kane" wrote:


A simple question. List as many of the possible reasons
for draws between GMs you can think of *and* the
empirical evidence necessary to confirm *each* one.

Why should I do that? I have stated that GMs' knowing that chess is a
draw is a reason for them to draw. That's all. I have also stated that
another reason for draws is lack of material, or (non-decisive)
zugzwang. Then there's threefold repetition. Then the 50 move rule.
What exactly is your point?

The point is that you have to analyze evidence to determine
between various theories. You, of course, cannot even
bring yourself to *list* different possibilities, let alone
go the next step to figure out what evidence would be
needed to support each theory.

My guess is that your fundamentalist perspective will
make it impossible for you to do so, or even try.

My guess is proven 100% accurate. Why think when
the Bible gives you all the answers, right?

David Kane asks:

A simple question. List as many of the possible reasons
for draws between GMs you can think of *and* the
empirical evidence necessary to confirm *each* one.


Seems to me that the main reason for decisive games between GMs is the
fact that a win is better than a draw. Likewise the main reason for
draws between GMs is the fact that a draw is better than a loss.

I should expect empirical research to confirm this bold conjecture.
For example, given a choice between a drawing line and a losing line,
I'd wager that a GM would consistently pick the former. If he sees it,
which he often will.

LT

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I said no such thing, you illiterate moron. I indicated that *with
perfect play chess is a draw* and that, knowing this, GMs are
content to draw. That's all. No mention of perfect play *by
GMs*. Idiot.

GMs do not *know* that chess is drawn with perfect play. They may
well strongly suspect it and the suspicion may well be true. But, at
the moment, nobody knows whether chess is a draw, a win for White or a
win for Black with perfect play.

I have to say, you look rather foolish calling somebody an `illiterate
moron' and an `idiot', when you can't even get the facts straight that
are central to your argument.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Cyber-Monk (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God that exists only in your computer!

On 15 Mar 2007 05:40:35 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

Read an Informator. Every lost position results from a decisive
mistake. No decisive mistake, no lost position, drawn game. It's very
simple.

Finding the best move is in principle a matter of analysis, not
statistics, although the latter can be useful in determining practical
chances. A move employed hundreds of times in GM praxis will be
ash-canned if someone finds a refutation. So, Informator is not the
critical resource for this problem.

If perfect play results in a forced win for White (the advantage of
the move proves decisive) or for Black (the initial position turns out
to be zugzwang), then the side with the disadvantage could play
perfectly and still lose.

Therefore, the claim that every lost position results from a decisive
mistake begs the question as to whether perfect play leads to a draw.