On 22 Mar, 12:02, David Richerby
wrote:
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.


Not "anyone", just those who put words in one's mouth, and stubbornly
*refuse* to examine the evidence, and draw from it the only
scientifically reasonable conclusion: chess is a draw.

Mark.

Dave.

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

On 22 Mar, 12:03, David Richerby
wrote:
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.


No, you have, even if you don't realise it. Extrapolate from the
thesis which you gave in the post three up the subthread from this
one. Where does it lead?

Mark.

Dave.

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

Mark Houlsby wrote:
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.

Evidence is not proof.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Broken Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it doesn't work!

Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
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.

Not "anyone", just those who put words in one's mouth, and
stubbornly *refuse* to examine the evidence, and draw from it the
only scientifically reasonable conclusion: chess is a draw.

This isn't science: it's mathematics. I have seen the evidence and I,
like most people, believe that the evidence points towards chess being
a draw. But that is not proof.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Cheese (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ lump of cheese but it's full of holes!

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


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.

This is no reason at all. Why would GMs modify their
behavior in order to make their result conform to
what they believe the result should be with perfect
play?

If moving first in Go were believed to be a winning
advantage, would it be rational for the second player
adopt an attitude that he should try to lose? Of course
not.


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.

So ...? Think! Put two and two together. Reject doctrine
and use your mind!

snipped

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:

You've again missed the point. In a position that was *provably*
a draw, they blundered on, not finding the correct drawing and
winning lines. Are you saying that can't happen from the opening
position?

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.

That is why your extrapolation from the belief that perfect
play is a draw cannot be assumed to be the only factor
in determining actual draw rates. *Other* factors must also
be accounted for.

The hotly contested, perfectly
played draw is not as common as you think.
In the 2006 IPCCC computer event, 8 of 35 (23%)
games were draws. That would be a reasonable
first guess for the natural drawing rate in contested
games at the GM level. You've yet to explain where
the extra 40+% of draws comes from.

On 22 Mar 2007 10:25:56 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


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?

Your earlier responses to my comments earlier in this thread:

If perfect play results in a forced win for White (the advantage of
the move proves decisive)

...which is impossible...

or for Black (the initial position turns out
to be zugzwang),

...which is also impossible...

A rational person may well consider these statements "improbable" in
light of current knowledge.These statements (each of which may turn
out be false, once God publishes His analysis) can only be
"impossible" if you assume your claim that a perfectly played game of
chess is a draw. But this claim, of course, is what we're
discussing. The technique you employ is known as "begging the
question". (That it may also beg *for* the question, 'why are we
arguing this again?', is quite another matter).

On 22 Mar, 18:47, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...
On 22 Mar, 03:45, "David Kane" wrote:





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.

This is no reason at all.

No, it is a *very* good reason.

Why would GMs modify their
behavior in order to make their result conform to
what they believe the result should be with perfect
play?


Good question! If you ask more good questions like that one, you may
find yourself beginning to understand chess better (which would be,
like, really good).

I've already pointed you in the direction of the answer. Seek and ye
shall find, work and ye shall prosper.

If moving first in Go were believed to be a winning
advantage, would it be rational for the second player
adopt an attitude that he should try to lose? Of course
not.


All subjunctive, all irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

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.

So ...?

So my opponents and I play badly.

Think!

---*thinks*

Put two and two together.

Four. Or perhaps twenty-two.

Reject doctrine
and use your mind!


Ok.

My mind tells me that examining evidence and deducing a logical
conclusion is preferable to believing something on the basis of no
evidence whatsoever.

What does *your* mind tell *you*?

snipped

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:

You've again missed the point. In a position that was *provably*
a draw, they blundered on, not finding the correct drawing and
winning lines.

Correct. I did not miss that point.

Are you saying that can't happen from the opening
position?


No, not at all. Are you completely illiterate and stupid?

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.

That is why your extrapolation from the belief that perfect
play is a draw cannot be assumed to be the only factor
in determining actual draw rates. *Other* factors must also
be accounted for.


Yes, we already established this. Several posts ago, in fact.

The hotly contested, perfectly
played draw is not as common as you think.

In fact, it has never been played, so it is *exactly* as common as I
think.

In the 2006 IPCCC computer event, 8 of 35 (23%)
games were draws. That would be a reasonable
first guess for the natural drawing rate in contested
games at the GM level. You've yet to explain where
the extra 40+% of draws comes from.

As I just stated, we've *already* established this. We have, haven't
we? I mean, you're not going to troll this one *again*, I hope?

On 22 Mar, 19:26, Mike Murray wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 10:25:56 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"

wrote:
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?

Your earlier responses to my comments earlier in this thread:

If perfect play results in a forced win for White (the advantage of
the move proves decisive)
...which is impossible...
or for Black (the initial position turns out
to be zugzwang),
...which is also impossible...

A rational person may well consider these statements "improbable" in
light of current knowledge.

True. That doesn't mean that *in fact* it's anything other than
impossible, however.

These statements (each of which may turn
out be false, once God publishes His analysis) can only be
"impossible" if you assume your claim that a perfectly played game of
chess is a draw.

True. Perfectly played chess *is* a draw. I have scientific proof (as,
indeed, does anyone who owns a copy of Informator [I happen to own
copies of all of them]).

But this claim, of course, is what we're
discussing.

Well, it's one of the topics under discussion. Mr. Kane seems
determined to project onto me some of his own shortcomings, but I
kinda invited that, so....

The technique you employ is known as "begging the
question".

No, it's not. My position is simple. All of the evidence supports the
argument that there is no such thing as a lost position absent a
decisive mistake, therefore, absent a decisive mistake, the game is
drawn. Perfect play certainly does not permit a mistake of any kind,
therefore perfectly played chess is a draw. It's an argument
predicated upon *scientific proof*. If you, or anyone else, can
provide credible scientific evidence that perfectly played chess is
*not* a draw, great, you'll have made possibly the most important
discovery in the history of chess theory. The point is that it's no
more likely to happen than finding a skeleton of homo sapiens which
dates back to the time of the dinosaurs. Where is the *evidence* to
confute "perfectly played chess is a draw"?

(That it may also beg *for* the question, 'why are we
arguing this again?', is quite another matter).

Why, indeed, are we arguing this again? If you didn't understand this
last time (and you didn't) then you're unlikely to get it now, or next
time, or the time after that....

On 22 Mar, 18:22, David Richerby
wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
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.

Not "anyone", just those who put words in one's mouth, and
stubbornly *refuse* to examine the evidence, and draw from it the
only scientifically reasonable conclusion: chess is a draw.

This isn't science: it's mathematics. I have seen the evidence and I,
like most people, believe that the evidence points towards chess being
a draw. But that is not proof.


Playing chess is *not* like building mathematical models. Informator
is (its creators asserted) an attempt *scientifically* to classify
chess, principally by opening variation. Chess is more science than
mathematics. Scientific proof is fundamentally different from
mathematical proof. Surely you know that? There *is* scientific
*proof* that chess is a draw. It *is* proof. It's not *mathematical*
proof, but since chess is not mathematics, so what? There *is*
scientific proof. If you know of *any* credible evidence which
suggests that chess is not inherently a draw, would you be so good as
to share it? Otherwise, if you intend to keep misreading and missing
the point, would you be so good as to keep stumm?

Mark.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Cheese (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ lump of cheese but it's full of holes!

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 22 Mar, 18:47, "David Kane" wrote:


The hotly contested, perfectly
played draw is not as common as you think.

In fact, it has never been played, so it is *exactly* as common as I
think.

You are very confused. There *are* many games
without obvious errors where the result
is a draw and the games appear fully contested.
(Admittedly, we haven't defined exactly what is
meant by "fully contested" but most thinking people
can accept that it is a meaningful concept.) But these
are a minority.

In the 2006 IPCCC computer event, 8 of 35 (23%)
games were draws. That would be a reasonable
first guess for the natural drawing rate in contested
games at the GM level. You've yet to explain where
the extra 40+% of draws comes from.

As I just stated, we've *already* established this. We have, haven't
we? I mean, you're not going to troll this one *again*, I hope?


You've established nothing. To put it another way, if playing
the best move (aka "playing chess") at the GM level
produces about 25% draws (as evidenced by computers),
then why do GM's not play the best moves? (as
evidenced by their 60+% draw rates)

Larry Tapper hit on the answer exactly. He noted
that "high-level players are canny utility maximizers".
They aren't maximizing good chess, they are maximizing
"highest tournament score". They aren't really
playing chess, they are engaging in a competition
which has chess as a component. They've
concluded that playing the best move is a
sub-optimal strategy and that it is better to
play a number of uncontested or partially
contested games.

You are free to like that situation, but I am free
to dislike it. I think it is ridiculous to dissuade
the world's best players from playing the best
chess possible. To distort the game to the degree
where the draw rate is double or greater the
natural draw rate is lunacy.