"Inconnux" wrote in message
news:u5GMh.1394$__3.614@edtnps90...

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.

"Just moments before I played this
move, the game Gerzhoy-Bluvshtein
ended in a draw. It meant I did not
have to win this game anymore. Following
my last move I immediately ofered
a draw to Pascal. He had no better
choice but to accept"

Yet his notes after 47.Bh5

"This wins too but I missed a pretty
checkmate 47.Rh5 Rh6 48.Rh6 Kh6
49.Rc2!! and black does not have a
good way to preventing checkmate"

So In a Zonal Final an IM admits to
having a won game but offers a draw

The real question is to what
quantitative degree are draw
rates inflated by these external
factors, and what can be done
about them.

In some sense I think it is a mistake
to focus on special cases like this
one, or the usual target of the
obviously uncontested GM draw,
because it leads people to overlook
that the same factors behind
those events have an insidious
influence throughout chess.

I posted this because it was an example
of an IM admitting publicly that he
offered a draw prematurely. How does
this affect the overall draw rate? I have
no idea. There are many examples
of fighting chess that end in a draw.
I doubt anyone has a problem with these
games.

A point worth considering:
Subjectively, everyone has seen, or played,
hard fought draws which seem to embody
the best of chess. Objectively, when
chess fans of the Corus tournament voted
for "the most elegant or most interesting
game", decisive games were 22 times as
likely to receive a vote as drawn games.




How does this affect the local chess
tournaments? In the last tournament
I was in, in the last round the leader
found out that all he needed was a draw
and proceeded to offer his opponent a
draw before the game was started.
The TD immediately told him that that
was illegal to do. The game did end
up as a draw, but one has to wonder if
all he was playing for was a draw.
Since he was a young junior player, he
wasn't penalized for his draw offer.

Just as it is impossible to eliminate
all draws without radically changing
the underlying game, it would also be
impossible to completely eliminate
the external incentives to draw. But
they can certainly be reduced.


I think giving the BAP system a try
would be an interesting experiment.
This might reduce the amount of draws
but then again it might produce its own
set of problems.

True.

Mike Murray wrote:
In chess, evidence doesn't accumulate in quite the same way as it
does in experimental science. In chess, a bust to a variation
renders irrelevant all prior experience with that variation. It
doesn't matter that GM praxis is 40-1 for White in a given line, if
you and Fritz discover a forced win for Black.

If this `forced win for Black' really was a forced win for Black,
you're exactly right. And this is what I mean when I say that
discussions of perfect play in chess are in the realm of mathematics.
But the thing is, we usually don't know that this `forced win' really
is a forced win. Unless it's something like a mate in four, we
haven't actually analyzed every possible continuation of the game and
found that, in any position that can result, White has a move that
forces the win. All we know is that White has to lose a knight or
something. Against most human players, that's enough to get the win
but we don't know for sure that *every* possible sequence of moves by
White loses against best play for Black. What if that `loss' of a
knight was, in reality, a cunning sacrifice that forces the win for
White? We don't know. It seems likely that losing the knight loses
the game. The evidence (in the sense now of experimental science)
suggests that losing the knight loses the game. We believe that
losing the knight loses the game but we don't know for sure.

And this is what I meant when I talked about evidence. The evidence
of the last two hundred years' chess is that White can try all sorts
of ways to gain an advantage from the opening and get into nice
positions from which he can try to force a win. But, in the end, some
clever player with the Black pieces finds a way to neutralize the
threat and we're back to square one again. The evidence says that
1.a3 is a bad move but we don't know for certain that 1.a3 is really
bad. It might just be that we don't know how to play the resulting
positions. In all probability, 1.a3 is just bad but, who knows?, it
might be the only move that forces the win.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mouldy Solar-Powered Laser (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an intense beam of light
but it doesn't work in the dark and
it's starting to grow mushrooms!

On 23 Mar, 00:51, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

news




On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:02:01 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:

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.

Here's a nit: It might be better to say "striving for the best move
is a sub-optimal strategy...", since if they could count on *playing*
it, they probably would. The effort to always find the best move too
often leads to exhaustion driven blunders.

I stand corrected. After the usual bleating
from Mr. Houlsby, it's nice to be reminded that
some have the intelligence to understand the
written word.

Unlike you, you mean?

On 23 Mar, 01:01, "David Kane" wrote:
"Inconnux" wrote in message

news:EDDMh.423$__3.220@edtnps90...





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.

Chess Canada November 2006 P.21

IM Zugic vs GM Charbonneau
Canadian Zonal (9) 26.08.2006

Quoting Igor Zugic
2006 Canadian Champion

"Just moments before I played this
move, the game Gerzhoy-Bluvshtein
ended in a draw. It meant I did not
have to win this game anymore. Following
my last move I immediately ofered
a draw to Pascal. He had no better
choice but to accept"

Yet his notes after 47.Bh5

"This wins too but I missed a pretty
checkmate 47.Rh5 Rh6 48.Rh6 Kh6
49.Rc2!! and black does not have a
good way to preventing checkmate"

So In a Zonal Final an IM admits to
having a won game but offers a draw
because

"However, I did not want to wait
a second to become the new
Canadian Champion."

Another clearcut case that
the alleged drawishness

You really can't read, can you?

of
chess does not explain the
actual draws that occur.


Sure it does, at least in part.

The real question is to what
quantitative degree are draw
rates inflated by these external
factors, and what can be done
about them.


No, that is not the real question. Read the Nimzowitsch essay.

In some sense I think it is a mistake
to focus on special cases like this
one, or the usual target of the
obviously uncontested GM draw,
because it leads people to overlook
that the same factors behind
those events have an insidious
influence throughout chess.

No, they have no influence, so no influence certainly cannot be
insiduous. Lower-rated tournaments are too blunder-prone.

On 23 Mar, 16:11, "David Kane" wrote:
"Inconnux" wrote in message

news:u5GMh.1394$__3.614@edtnps90...







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.

"Just moments before I played this
move, the game Gerzhoy-Bluvshtein
ended in a draw. It meant I did not
have to win this game anymore. Following
my last move I immediately ofered
a draw to Pascal. He had no better
choice but to accept"

Yet his notes after 47.Bh5

"This wins too but I missed a pretty
checkmate 47.Rh5 Rh6 48.Rh6 Kh6
49.Rc2!! and black does not have a
good way to preventing checkmate"

So In a Zonal Final an IM admits to
having a won game but offers a draw

The real question is to what
quantitative degree are draw
rates inflated by these external
factors, and what can be done
about them.

In some sense I think it is a mistake
to focus on special cases like this
one, or the usual target of the
obviously uncontested GM draw,
because it leads people to overlook
that the same factors behind
those events have an insidious
influence throughout chess.

I posted this because it was an example
of an IM admitting publicly that he
offered a draw prematurely. How does
this affect the overall draw rate? I have
no idea. There are many examples
of fighting chess that end in a draw.
I doubt anyone has a problem with these
games.

A point worth considering:
Subjectively, everyone has seen, or played,
hard fought draws which seem to embody
the best of chess.

Best? Not sure. Most enjoyable/appreciable? Certainly.


Objectively, when
chess fans of the Corus tournament voted
for "the most elegant or most interesting
game", decisive games were 22 times as
likely to receive a vote as drawn games.


So, in other words, it was subjective, rather than objective.


How does this affect the local chess
tournaments? In the last tournament
I was in, in the last round the leader
found out that all he needed was a draw
and proceeded to offer his opponent a
draw before the game was started.
The TD immediately told him that that
was illegal to do. The game did end
up as a draw, but one has to wonder if
all he was playing for was a draw.
Since he was a young junior player, he
wasn't penalized for his draw offer.

Just as it is impossible to eliminate
all draws without radically changing
the underlying game, it would also be
impossible to completely eliminate
the external incentives to draw. But
they can certainly be reduced.


How, pray? All you'll do is chase away the better players who (as a
consequence of their being better players) understand that chess is a
draw, and use that fact in their tournament and match praxis.



I think giving the BAP system a try
would be an interesting experiment.
This might reduce the amount of draws
but then again it might produce its own
set of problems.

True.

Right... like discouraging the best players from competing. Great idea!

On 23 Mar, 16:52, "Mark Houlsby" wrote:
On 23 Mar, 01:01, "David Kane" wrote:





"Inconnux" wrote in message

news:EDDMh.423$__3.220@edtnps90...

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.

Chess Canada November 2006 P.21

IM Zugic vs GM Charbonneau
Canadian Zonal (9) 26.08.2006

Quoting Igor Zugic
2006 Canadian Champion

"Just moments before I played this
move, the game Gerzhoy-Bluvshtein
ended in a draw. It meant I did not
have to win this game anymore. Following
my last move I immediately ofered
a draw to Pascal. He had no better
choice but to accept"

Yet his notes after 47.Bh5

"This wins too but I missed a pretty
checkmate 47.Rh5 Rh6 48.Rh6 Kh6
49.Rc2!! and black does not have a
good way to preventing checkmate"

So In a Zonal Final an IM admits to
having a won game but offers a draw
because

"However, I did not want to wait
a second to become the new
Canadian Champion."

Another clearcut case that
the alleged drawishness

You really can't read, can you?

of
chess does not explain the
actual draws that occur.

Sure it does, at least in part.

The real question is to what
quantitative degree are draw
rates inflated by these external
factors, and what can be done
about them.

No, that is not the real question. Read the Nimzowitsch essay.

In some sense I think it is a mistake
to focus on special cases like this
one, or the usual target of the
obviously uncontested GM draw,
because it leads people to overlook
that the same factors behind
those events have an insidious
influence throughout chess.

No, they have no influence, so no influence certainly cannot be
insiduous.


Typo: I meant to write "...insidious" not "...insiduous [sic]". Mea
culpa.

Lower-rated tournaments are too blunder-prone

On 23 Mar, 13:12, David Richerby
wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
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.

Agreed. But we are not discussing playing chess: we are discussing
whether or not chess is a theoretical draw.


You may be discussing that, but Mr. Kane is not, and I am not, and
whether or not chess is a theoretical draw is irrelevant to the topic
of this thread, which pertains, specifically, to chess *praxis*. In
this thread, the question "Is chess a theoretical draw?" is strictly
off-topic (not to mention irrelevant, owing to its answer's being
unattainable).

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.

Yes. In particular, mathematical proof exists and scientific proof
does not.

Have you ever flown anywhere?

A good scientist will never claim to have proven anything:
they will claim only that the results of their experiment are
consistent with one theory and inconsistent with some other theory.


Many scientists claim scientific proof. This serves until the advent
of a paradigm. Do you know of a paradigm relevant to the topic of this
thread?

The results of the `experiment' that is several hundred years of
high-level chess playing is consistent with the theory that chess is a
theoretical draw and inconsistent with the theories that it is a win
for white or black.


Absolutely consistent, yes. 100% consistent, in fact. 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?

I never claimed there was any such evidence.

So SHUT THE **** UP.

TROLL.


As I have said several
times, I believe that chess is a draw with perfect play. I see no
evidence to the contrary. My point is that this is not proof;


It IS *****SCIENTIFIC PROOF*****

it is
merely an accumulation of evidence.


....which, when the result is 100% unequivocal, as in this case, is
known as *****SCIENTIFIC PROOF*****

This is why I am careful to say
that I *believe* that chess is a draw, rather than that I *know* it.


Why not just say nothing? It would be much better for everyone.
Really.

Mark.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Flammable Monk (TM): it'swww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of God but it burns really
easily and it'll turn your stomach!

On 23 Mar, 14:44, Mike Murray wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 13:12:46 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby

wrote:
The results of the `experiment' that is several hundred years of
high-level chess playing is consistent with the theory that chess is a
theoretical draw and inconsistent with the theories that it is a win
for white or black.
...
I never claimed there was any such evidence. As I have said several
times, I believe that chess is a draw with perfect play. I see no
evidence to the contrary. My point is that this is not proof; it is
merely an accumulation of evidence. This is why I am careful to say
that I *believe* that chess is a draw, rather than that I *know* it.

In chess, evidence doesn't accumulate in quite the same way as it does
in experimental science.

Actually it does, even if in effect the process is somewhat more
iterative, and the successive iterations can fluctuate rather wildly.

In chess, a bust to a variation renders
irrelevant all prior experience with that variation.

Not necessarily. A bust can be busted. See above.

It doesn't
matter that GM praxis is 40-1 for White in a given line, if you and
Fritz discover a forced win for Black.

Unless somebody (or Hydra) finds an improvement for white earlier in
the line. See above.


In this sense, it's more akin
to mathematics where, if someone proves a theorem, it's merely of
interest to biographers that several top mathematicians have spent
months and years failing to prove it.


Nonsense. Mathematical proof has nothing whatsoever to do with chess.
A mathematical proof is a proof forever. Chess will never be solved.
Humankind will be extinct first.

In these cases, the accumulation of evidence functions more like
heuristics for how to spend one's finite amount of earthly time.

So why do you write in RGC*?

In article ,
David Richerby wrote:
[...] The evidence says that
1.a3 is a bad move but we don't know for certain [...]

Whoa! *What* evidence says that? There is certainly the
empirical evidence that GMs/IMs don't play it very often, and that
1 d4/e4/etc seem "sharper". But that's a different matter. *If*
"perfect chess" is a draw, then *any* move that avoids losing is
as good, in principle, as any other. If, further, as most of us
expect, the drawing margin is in fact quite wide, then I would be
somewhat surprised if *any* first white move is so bad as to lose
by force. This, in turn, is quite likely to mean that [eg] 1 a3 d6
2 c3 Nd7 3 Ra2 ... is as "perfect" as any other "drawn" opening.
The only reason to play something particular is the hope that an
inferior opponent is more likely to blunder.

FWIW, when explaining alpha-beta pruning to students, I
usually use the example 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 as an instance of a line that
*is* [I'm tolerably sure] bad. The point of the pruning is that once
you know [tolerably certainly] that [eg] 2 ... Nxa6 wins for Black,
there is no need to waste time examining whether 2 ... bxa6 or 2 ...
Qf6 or anything else *also* wins, which speeds up the analysis by a
factor of around 30 [and again by a similar factor on every black
move]. [Sanny perhaps needs to learn this, tho' that might spoil
the fun.]

Somewhat on the other hand, I think the example of endgame
tablebases ought to make us very wary of claiming any knowledge of
the theoretical outcome of any level-ish position. Experience had
been that KQvKR and KBBvKN were respectively usually an "easy" win
and a draw, resp; the computer has shown that both are "difficult"
wins from general positions. Similarly with other 5/6 piece endings.
We are quite likely to find that some of our opinions about typical
middle-game positions have in fact been mass delusions.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

On 23 Mar, 17:28, (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote:
In article ,
David Richerby wrote:

[...] The evidence says that
1.a3 is a bad move but we don't know for certain [...]

Whoa! *What* evidence says that? There is certainly the
empirical evidence that GMs/IMs don't play it very often, and that
1 d4/e4/etc seem "sharper". But that's a different matter. *If*
"perfect chess" is a draw, then *any* move that avoids losing is
as good, in principle, as any other.

Agreed. If one considers the praxis of Miles/Sokolsky/Benko/Norwood
etc. then that does, indeed, appear to be the case.

If, further, as most of us
expect, the drawing margin is in fact quite wide, then I would be
somewhat surprised if *any* first white move is so bad as to lose
by force.

Quite so.

This, in turn, is quite likely to mean that [eg] 1 a3 d6
2 c3 Nd7 3 Ra2 ... is as "perfect" as any other "drawn" opening.
The only reason to play something particular is the hope that an
inferior opponent is more likely to blunder.


Yes. Any given main line *may* be finally refuted, one day, but that
day is a *very* long way off, and, most probably, shall never arrive.

FWIW, when explaining alpha-beta pruning to students, I
usually use the example 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 as an instance of a line that
*is* [I'm tolerably sure] bad.

Are you ever intolerably sure ;-)

The point of the pruning is that once
you know [tolerably certainly] that [eg] 2 ... Nxa6 wins for Black,
there is no need to waste time examining whether 2 ... bxa6 or 2 ...
Qf6 or anything else *also* wins, which speeds up the analysis by a
factor of around 30 [and again by a similar factor on every black
move]. [Sanny perhaps needs to learn this, tho' that might spoil
the fun.]


Yes. All this has been stated before in these groups, not just by you
Andy, but also, for example, by Remco Gerlich, and I have stated it
too. That's what gets me about Richerby. He appears to have the
attention span of a hamster, and is evidently unable to check the
archive. Plus he can't read, and can't follow the thread of an
argument. Plus, he's persistently idiotic.

Apart from that, he's got everything going for him, no doubt.

Somewhat on the other hand, I think the example of endgame
tablebases ought to make us very wary of claiming any knowledge of
the theoretical outcome of any level-ish position.

Define "level-ish". A position is level, or it's not. When is an edge
meaningful in an endgame?

Experience had
been that KQvKR and KBBvKN were respectively usually an "easy" win
and a draw, resp; the computer has shown that both are "difficult"
wins from general positions.

KQkr *is* easy for the side with the Queen. Even I can do it, and I'm
a patzer. It's just a question of learning the patterns. No doubt the
same is true of KBBkn.

Similarly with other 5/6 piece endings.
We are quite likely to find that some of our opinions about typical
middle-game positions have in fact been mass delusions.


Indeed, systems like Hydra may well demonstrate that certain
positions, previously considered sound, are, in fact, critical. All of
this is rather off-topic, however interesting.

Mark Houlsby

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.