On 16 Mar, 16:42, David Richerby
wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:

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.

If one side (let's say White) can force a win with perfect play and
proceeds to do so, it doesn't really make sense to ask if Black was
playing perfectly. A strategy is perfect if it obtains the best
possible result from any position. If White has a forced win, the
best possible result for Black from any position that White will allow
to occur is a loss (for Black) so any move, including `Resigns', is
`perfect'.

You could argue that losing in a hundred moves is preferable to losing
in three but that's pretty subjective -- there's nothing in the rules
that says that a quick win is in any way preferable.


You have just argued cogently that chess is a draw.

I have to agree.

Mark.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Evil Gnome (TM): it's like a smilingwww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ garden ornament but it's genuinely
evil!

On 16 Mar, 18:30, Mike Murray wrote:
On 16 Mar 2007 16:42:55 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby





wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
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.
If one side (let's say White) can force a win with perfect play and
proceeds to do so, it doesn't really make sense to ask if Black was
playing perfectly. A strategy is perfect if it obtains the best
possible result from any position. If White has a forced win, the
best possible result for Black from any position that White will allow
to occur is a loss (for Black) so any move, including `Resigns', is
`perfect'.
You could argue that losing in a hundred moves is preferable to losing
in three but that's pretty subjective -- there's nothing in the rules
that says that a quick win is in any way preferable.

In any position, most players would define "perfect" play in a lost
position as that posing the most problems for the opponent, giving the
opponent the most chances to go wrong.

Good to see that you put "perfect" in quotes. If a position is lost,
playing for a swindle is fine, but it's not really relevant to the
reasons why GMs make draws.

Your definition is fine if
one abstracts the element of competition from the problem, i.e., if
one assumes the opponent is capable of finding those perfect moves the
position demands, and can make these moves in the game within time
limits, etc. So, facing a choice of theoretically lost positions, a
GM forcing his opponent into one of the weird Queen endings for which
a forced mate in 144 (or some such thing) exists in the tablebases,
would be playing "better" than if he fell on his sword into a mate in
four, even though the outcome would be the same were he facing God or
Fritz XXX.


Competitively speaking, a forced mate in 144 is a draw, unless the
ending in question is reached 100 moves in, or something. The trick is
to be able to recognise the fact, which is why GM Nunn's "Secrets..."
books are good.

At any rate, since we were arguing against Houlsby's claim that "Every
lost position results from a decisive mistake. No decisive mistake, no
lost position, drawn game", my paragraph cold be rewritten as

"If perfect play results in a forced win..., then the side with the
disadvantage could make no errors and still lose."

which seems to finesse your objection.


No, it doesn't. Dave is right that a lost game is a lost game is a
lost game. The initial position is *not* lost for either side. Chess
is a draw.

Discuss.




Dave.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 21 Mar 2007 15:44:46 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


Competitively speaking, a forced mate in 144 is a draw, unless the
ending in question is reached 100 moves in, or something. The trick is
to be able to recognise the fact, which is why GM Nunn's "Secrets..."
books are good.

You may be right at the moment. The powers that be have been futzing
with these extensions to the fifty-move-rule in response to computer
discoveries. I think they've been currently drifting back to the
classic fifty move rules with a couple of exceptions. Anyway, this
isn't a critical issue. In a practical situation, you try to give set
your opponent difficult problems -- if the opponent is God, it won't
work.

At any rate, since we were arguing against Houlsby's claim that "Every
lost position results from a decisive mistake. No decisive mistake, no
lost position, drawn game", my paragraph cold be rewritten as

"If perfect play results in a forced win..., then the side with the
disadvantage could make no errors and still lose."

which seems to finesse your objection.

No, it doesn't. Dave is right that a lost game is a lost game is a
lost game. The initial position is *not* lost for either side. Chess
is a draw.

Discuss.

Discuss this:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 16 Mar, 19:22, "David Kane" wrote:
"Larry Tapper" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Mar 16, 1:07 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Larry Tapper" wrote in message

roups.com...

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

In my opinion, these conjectures are not useful. For example, many
games/sports have draws, but they don't occur as often as they
do in chess. In some games, e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe, they occur more
often.

David,

Actually my earlier post, to which you are responding here, was meant
to be a bit of gentle needling. But irony doesn't register very well
in newsgroups without the liberal use of those awful emoticons. ;-!

I did detect the irony.

Still, your outline of the issues below strikes me as reasonable.
Sometimes, though, I think your rhetoric flies too high. Those who are
satisfied with the status quo are not necessarily "lovers" or
"worshippers" of the bloodless draw. Speaking for myself, I don't
especially love draws, but I do think that it's logical and
appropriate for the number of points scored in a chess game to add up
to a constant, presently 1. So I don't like the BAP system at all.
This is not to discourage tournament organizers from experimenting
with BAP --- my guess is that if this were a commonly used format, its
defects would soon become apparent.

I actually do *not* consider it *logical* to count draws as 0.5.

In that case, you're being *illogical*, since, clearly, chess is a
draw.

It's
traditional, and it would be a reasonable default assumption if we
knew nothing about chess.

It's even more reasonable for those who *do* understand chess--GMs--
evidently.

But it also leads to some horrible
situations in practice.


Says who?

And I don't dispute that BAP or its equivalent could well have
problems that we don't expect, as well as the ones that we know
that it does have. The question in my mind is, on the whole, which
makes chess better.

Better play makes chess better, clearly. In order to produce their
best in a tournament, GMs make short draws sometimes. To do otherwise
would lower the quality of the games. Not that anyone who doesn't
understand an Informator annotation would notice....


The only way that I can think of to find out
is to try.


Good idea! Try to become a GM, then you'll find out that chess is a
draw.

Consider Anand's winning performance at Morelia/ Linares. He played
very well --- his wins included an especially fine game against
Carlsen. Having built up a solid lead, he then coasted to first place,
taking fewer risks in the Linares leg of the tournament.

I have no complaints about that --- do you? To me it's just a part of
chess that high-level players are canny utility maximizers and don't
necessarily turn every game into a violent slugfest.

My complaint is that it isn't very interesting.

So go do something else. Chess isn't for you. You're too dumb.

Why wouldn't the same
high level players also be canny utility maximizers if the scoring
encouraged more chess per game?

It's because chess is *inherently* a draw. Become a GM, and you'll
find out why.

Wouldn't it be more interesting
if something were actually on the line when the titans face each other?

That's right, it wouldn't be. More exciting for morons, maybe, but
definitely not more interesting that top-level chess.

You seem to suggest that there is something natural about employing
a strategy consisting of "coasting to victory by a string of draws"
to win tournaments.

There *is* something natural about it. Chess *is* a draw. Read
Nimzowitsch's essay. Read an Informator. Become a GM and you'll find
out why.

What I'd like to get you to consider is that
there is nothing "natural" about it -

Of course there is, idiot. Does *nothing* sink in with you? You're too
ignorant and too dumb to be expressing such opinions in public.
Really.

it's the organizers' (dubious
from a marketing perspective) *decision* to make that a
viable strategy.


No, it's the *fact* that chess is a *draw*.



It's rather discouraging to argue with someone like you.
Your "faith-based" approach to questions and utter
disavowal of things like logic and evidence leave you in
a rather pitiable condition where your only recourse is
to blindly repeat your meaningless mantra.

One of the difficulties is that you don't even
understand your own argument. You take a
belief, "Chess played perfectly is a draw", and then
repeat it over and over as if it is an important argument.
The problem, of course, is that real arguments
do not start and end with the repetition of
a meaningless "truths".

In the current case, you are making a huge
logical leap and not grasping that it needs
to be supported by evidence. How does the
belief that "Chess played perfectly is a draw"
actually lead to draws?

I'm sure you believe that "Chess played perfectly
is a draw". Are 70% of your games draws?
I'm inclined to believe it as well, but not only
are nowhere near 70% of my games draws,
I cannot even imagine how such a belief would
influence my chess behavior in the slightest way.
When Morozevich and Topalov were in a provably
drawn (with perfect play) endgame, they kept
playing and made 3 blunders leading to a
decisive outcome. Did they "believe" that the
game was drawn with perfect play? Maybe they
did, maybe they didn't, but in any case their "beliefs"
didn't help them find the correct drawing
(later winning) moves.

Simply put, you've put forth no theory, let alone
evidence, as to how a mere "belief" that
"chess played perfectly is a draw" would
influence the drawing rate.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
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.

Sure they do.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the distinction between knowledge
and belief.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Radio (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but it eats flesh!

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The initial position is *not* lost for either side. Chess is a draw.

Discuss.

Why bother? Anyone who doesn't accept the ``*fact*'' that chess is a
draw is an illiterate moron and an idiot. You said so, yourself.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Gerbil (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ children's pet but you can never put
it down!

Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
If one side (let's say White) can force a win with perfect play and
proceeds to do so, it doesn't really make sense to ask if Black was
playing perfectly. A strategy is perfect if it obtains the best
possible result from any position. If White has a forced win, the
best possible result for Black from any position that White will
allow to occur is a loss (for Black) so any move, including
`Resigns', is `perfect'.

You could argue that losing in a hundred moves is preferable to
losing in three but that's pretty subjective -- there's nothing in
the rules that says that a quick win is in any way preferable.

You have just argued cogently that chess is a draw.

I have done no such thing.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Edible Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven but you can eat
it and it doesn't work!

On 22 Mar, 03:45, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 16 Mar, 19:22, "David Kane" wrote:
"Larry Tapper" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Mar 16, 1:07 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Larry Tapper" wrote in message

roups.com...

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

In my opinion, these conjectures are not useful. For example, many
games/sports have draws, but they don't occur as often as they
do in chess. In some games, e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe, they occur more
often.

David,

Actually my earlier post, to which you are responding here, was meant
to be a bit of gentle needling. But irony doesn't register very well
in newsgroups without the liberal use of those awful emoticons. ;-!

I did detect the irony.

Still, your outline of the issues below strikes me as reasonable.
Sometimes, though, I think your rhetoric flies too high. Those who are
satisfied with the status quo are not necessarily "lovers" or
"worshippers" of the bloodless draw. Speaking for myself, I don't
especially love draws, but I do think that it's logical and
appropriate for the number of points scored in a chess game to add up
to a constant, presently 1. So I don't like the BAP system at all.
This is not to discourage tournament organizers from experimenting
with BAP --- my guess is that if this were a commonly used format, its
defects would soon become apparent.

I actually do *not* consider it *logical* to count draws as 0.5.

In that case, you're being *illogical*, since, clearly, chess is a
draw.

It's
traditional, and it would be a reasonable default assumption if we
knew nothing about chess.

It's even more reasonable for those who *do* understand chess--GMs--
evidently.

But it also leads to some horrible
situations in practice.

Says who?

And I don't dispute that BAP or its equivalent could well have
problems that we don't expect, as well as the ones that we know
that it does have. The question in my mind is, on the whole, which
makes chess better.

Better play makes chess better, clearly. In order to produce their
best in a tournament, GMs make short draws sometimes. To do otherwise
would lower the quality of the games. Not that anyone who doesn't
understand an Informator annotation would notice....

The only way that I can think of to find out
is to try.

Good idea! Try to become a GM, then you'll find out that chess is a
draw.

Consider Anand's winning performance at Morelia/ Linares. He played
very well --- his wins included an especially fine game against
Carlsen. Having built up a solid lead, he then coasted to first place,
taking fewer risks in the Linares leg of the tournament.

I have no complaints about that --- do you? To me it's just a part of
chess that high-level players are canny utility maximizers and don't
necessarily turn every game into a violent slugfest.

My complaint is that it isn't very interesting.

So go do something else. Chess isn't for you. You're too dumb.

Why wouldn't the same
high level players also be canny utility maximizers if the scoring
encouraged more chess per game?

It's because chess is *inherently* a draw. Become a GM, and you'll
find out why.

Wouldn't it be more interesting
if something were actually on the line when the titans face each other?

That's right, it wouldn't be. More exciting for morons, maybe, but
definitely not more interesting that top-level chess.

You seem to suggest that there is something natural about employing
a strategy consisting of "coasting to victory by a string of draws"
to win tournaments.

There *is* something natural about it. Chess *is* a draw. Read
Nimzowitsch's essay. Read an Informator. Become a GM and you'll find
out why.

What I'd like to get you to consider is that
there is nothing "natural" about it -

Of course there is, idiot. Does *nothing* sink in with you? You're too
ignorant and too dumb to be expressing such opinions in public.
Really.

it's the organizers' (dubious
from a marketing perspective) *decision* to make that a
viable strategy.

No, it's the *fact* that chess is a *draw*.

It's rather discouraging to argue with someone like you.

Not as discouraging as arguing with someone like you, let me tell you.

"Mao: We're even then. That is the right way to begin."
--Alice Goodman, libretto to _Nixon In China_ by John Adams

Your "faith-based" approach to questions and utter
disavowal of things like logic and evidence leave you in
a rather pitiable condition where your only recourse is
to blindly repeat your meaningless mantra.


On the contrary, ALL of the available credible evidence *supports* my
position. NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to the contrary exists. None. Zero.
Zilch. Nada. So my argument is based *entirely* on logic and evidence,
whereas positions to the contrary, owing to the lack of evidence in
their support, are based *entirely* on faith. This is why I keep
entreating you and others to read an Informator. If you don't
*understand* what you read in any Informator, then you have *no chance
whatever* of contributing meaningfully to discussions of this nature.
Sorry, and all that, but it's true.

One of the difficulties is that you don't even
understand your own argument.

Sure I do. Better than you, evidently.

You take a
belief, "Chess played perfectly is a draw",

No, it's *not* a "belief", it's a *conclusion* based upon evidence
which has been scientifically systematised for over forty years. There
*is* scientific proof (as opposed to mathematical proof) that chess
*is* a draw.

and then
repeat it over and over as if it is an important argument.

The reason I repeat it over and over is that many folks, including
you, seem not to get it. Maybe none of you ever will. I shall
persevere, nonetheless.

The problem, of course, is that real arguments
do not start and end with the repetition of
a meaningless "truths".


My argument is not encumbered with such a problem, since it is based
upon an abundance, even a preponderance, of evidence. No credible
contrary evidence exists. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In the current case, you are making a huge
logical leap and not grasping that it needs
to be supported by evidence.

No, I am grasping that, and have from the start. Evidently you don't
*understand* the evidence. Maybe you never will.

How does the
belief that "Chess played perfectly is a draw"
actually lead to draws?


It's not a "belief"... it's a conclusion based upon over forty years'
worth of evidence.

The reason, as I've already explained, why it leads to draws in GM
praxis is that GMs know that chess is a draw, and, for various
reasons, decide quite often to agree a short draw between themselves,
often in positions in which white or black enjoys an edge,
occasionally in positions in which one side or the other is clearly
better.


I'm sure you believe that "Chess played perfectly
is a draw". Are 70% of your games draws?

No. I blunder a lot. So, for that matter, do my opponents.

I'm inclined to believe it as well, but not only
are nowhere near 70% of my games draws,
I cannot even imagine how such a belief would
influence my chess behavior in the slightest way.

That's the problem. You cannot imagine. You've already made up your
mind that my position is based not on evidence but on blind faith
(when, in fact, the opposite is true) and evidently you don't
understand that in the starting position white has only a very slight
edge which there is *no* hope of increasing if black plays
sufficiently well. I cannot imagine anything other than careful and
effective study of the game should influence your chess behaviour. You
seem even more of a patzer than I am.

When Morozevich and Topalov were in a provably
drawn (with perfect play) endgame, they kept
playing and made 3 blunders leading to a
decisive outcome. Did they "believe" that the
game was drawn with perfect play?

Sure they did. Not that *specific* game, because in that *specific*
game the blunders *had already occurred*. Did they and do they believe
that chess, perfectly played, is a draw? Of course. That's one of the
reasons why they agreed *these* short draws with each other:

Topalov,V (2702) - Morozevich,A (2748) [C11]
Bosna SuperGM Sarajevo BIH (2), 18.05.2000

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Qd2 b6
8.g3 Bb7 9.Bg2 Qc8 10.f4 0-0 11.Bf3 Nc6 12.0-0-0 Rd8 13.Qg2 Nxd4
14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bxb7 Qd7 16.Nf3 Rab8 17.c3 Rxb7 18.Nxd4 Qd5 ½-½

Morozevich,A (2745) - Topalov,V (2718) [B36]
Corus Wijk aan Zee NED (11), 26.01.2001

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Nf6 6.Nc3 d6 7.Be2 Nxd4
8.Qxd4 Bg7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Qe3 Be6 11.Bd2 Qb6 12.Qxb6 axb6 13.a4 Nd7
14.Ra3 Nc5 15.Rfa1 Bxc3 16.Bxc3 Nxe4 17.Bd4 Rfc8 18.Re3 Bxc4 19.Rxe4
Bxe2 20.Bc3 Bb5 21.Rxe7 Bxa4 22.Rxb7 Bc6 23.Rba7 Rxa7 24.Rxa7 g5 25.f3
h6 26.Kf2 b5 ½-½

....and have made many short draws with other players.

Maybe they
did, maybe they didn't, but in any case their "beliefs"
didn't help them find the correct drawing
(later winning) moves.


No, obviously not. Understanding that chess is a draw exerts an
influence upon GMs' decision to *agree* draws, is all. No GM plays
perfectly. Never has.

Simply put, you've put forth no theory, let alone
evidence, as to how a mere "belief" that
"chess played perfectly is a draw" would
influence the drawing rate.

Have you ever *read* an Informator? The evidence is littered
throughout these books. Go read one. Tons of evidence. Way too much to
reproduce here.

All lost positions result from a decisive mistake. All of them. 100%.
No decisive mistake=no lost position. Ever. 0%. This is what is known
as scientific proof.

On 22 Mar, 11:52, David Richerby
wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
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.

Sure they do.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the distinction between knowledge
and belief.


I suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition of "evidence".
Maybe read Adorjan, and Berliner, and any number of Informators.

Mark.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Radio (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but it eats flesh!

On 22 Mar, 00:01, Mike Murray wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 15:44:46 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"

wrote:
Competitively speaking, a forced mate in 144 is a draw, unless the
ending in question is reached 100 moves in, or something. The trick is
to be able to recognise the fact, which is why GM Nunn's "Secrets..."
books are good.

You may be right at the moment. The powers that be have been futzing
with these extensions to the fifty-move-rule in response to computer
discoveries. I think they've been currently drifting back to the
classic fifty move rules with a couple of exceptions. Anyway, this
isn't a critical issue. In a practical situation, you try to give set
your opponent difficult problems -- if the opponent is God, it won't
work.


Right, and a draw will result, unless you make a losing blunder.

At any rate, since we were arguing against Houlsby's claim that "Every
lost position results from a decisive mistake. No decisive mistake, no
lost position, drawn game", my paragraph cold be rewritten as
"If perfect play results in a forced win..., then the side with the
disadvantage could make no errors and still lose."
which seems to finesse your objection.
No, it doesn't. Dave is right that a lost game is a lost game is a
lost game. The initial position is *not* lost for either side. Chess
is a draw.
Discuss.

Discuss this:http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Why? How is that link relevant? What is fallacious about my examining
a ton of evidence and drawing the *only* scientifically reasonable
conclusion from that evidence?