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

The better players these days are machines. They do not
"believe" that chess is a draw, and they draw far
less frequently than humans. The machines are designed
to play chess, whereas humans are driven by *non-chess*
factors.

The inabilty of your limited intellect to imagine
possibilities is evidence of absolutely nothing.


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 2007 10:14:02 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


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

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

Assume a player, call him "Homer", finds what he believes to be a bust
to a line. Then a second player, call him "Aristotle" thinks about
the bust and refutes it. Then, the bust wasn't a bust at all, was it?
I thought you were the guy who believed in absolute truth.

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.

Hydra's improvement earlier in a line still doesn't rehabilitate moves
subsequent to Fritz's bust. Those lines are still busted.

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*?

'cause it feels so good when I stop.

On 23 Mar, 19:36, Mike Murray wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 10:14:02 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"

wrote:
In chess, a bust to a variation renders
irrelevant all prior experience with that variation.
Not necessarily. A bust can be busted. See above.

Assume a player, call him "Homer", finds what he believes to be a bust
to a line. Then a second player, call him "Aristotle" thinks about
the bust and refutes it. Then, the bust wasn't a bust at all, was it?

Right. Like Fischer's King's Gambit bust.

I thought you were the guy who believed in absolute truth.


No, I believe in evidence. All of the evidence points to a draw, so I
believe draw. Not a shred of evidence points to white win, so I
believe draw. Not a shred of evidence points to black win, so I
believe draw. All credible analyses of every conceivable line indicate
that absent a decisive mistake no lost position is ever reached, so I
believe draw. I believe in evidence. What this means is that *if* some
credible evidence that chess is *not* a draw ever comes to light,
it'll get my serious attention. That's one of the reasons why I read:
"The System" by Hans Berliner. Berliner's thesis, his claims, and his
analyses are *all* garbage, however. That's not to say that the book
is completely useless, neither is it to suggest that reading it is a
waste of time (it's not a waste of time, it's a thought-provoking
book...but it's wrong).

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.

Hydra's improvement earlier in a line still doesn't rehabilitate moves
subsequent to Fritz's bust. Those lines are still busted.

Sure.


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*?

'cause it feels so good when I stop.

You've stopped? Yikes.

On 23 Mar, 19:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ps.com...





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.

The better players these days are machines.

True.

They do not
"believe" that chess is a draw,

True.

and they draw far
less frequently than humans.

Owing to mismatches in playing strength, for various reasons, yes, but
match two systems of similar strength and you'll get a lot of draws.

The machines are designed
to play chess,

No, they're not, they're designed to perform simple binary arithmetic,
and to compare numerical values. They're programmed to do lots of
things. One of the things that they *simulate* REALLY well is playing
chess, owing to its being a closed system. The reason why machines
generate moves better than humans play is that they *calculate*
further, and more accurately. They're not *playing* chess, however,
they're just performing binary arithmetic and comparing numerical
values.


whereas humans are driven by *non-chess*
factors.


Not necessarily driven, but they're a factor. The *fact* that chess is
a draw is a bigger factor, though. If chess were not inherently a draw
there would be fewer draws.

The inabilty of your limited intellect to imagine
possibilities

To imagine *what* possibilities? What are your grounds for suggesting
this? Have you *read* Nimzowitsch's essay? Have you *read* the
interview which Kramnik gave to New In Chess after his match with Leko
in Brissago? Have you *read* "The System" by Hans Berliner? Have you
*read* an Informator? Have you read *anything* which pertains? And you
write to me about *my* limited intellect.

**** off, moron.


is evidence of absolutely nothing.





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!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 23 Mar, 19:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ps.com...





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.

The better players these days are machines.

True.

They do not
"believe" that chess is a draw,

True.

and they draw far
less frequently than humans.

Owing to mismatches in playing strength, for various reasons, yes, but
match two systems of similar strength and you'll get a lot of draws.

How many, exactly? As many as between humans of the same strength?

Look it up and you'll find that the answer is no.

But your moronic chant that "chess is a draw" is *equally*
true for both.


Fundamentalists like yourself revel in the fact that
your mind is closed - see virtue in the fact that you aren't
tempted to consider other explanations. The price you pay for
that certainty of world view is that you don't get to
participate in the world of ideas. I sense a (very
small) amount of dissatisfaction with that situation
you have selected for yourself. Some small part of
your mind does want to think, but it is at war with
your personality. Unfortunately, that's a war whose
outcome I cannot influence.


The machines are designed
to play chess,

No, they're not, they're designed to perform simple binary arithmetic,
and to compare numerical values. They're programmed to do lots of
things. One of the things that they *simulate* REALLY well is playing
chess, owing to its being a closed system. The reason why machines
generate moves better than humans play is that they *calculate*
further, and more accurately. They're not *playing* chess, however,
they're just performing binary arithmetic and comparing numerical
values.


whereas humans are driven by *non-chess*
factors.


Not necessarily driven, but they're a factor. The *fact* that chess is
a draw is a bigger factor, though. If chess were not inherently a draw
there would be fewer draws.


Prove it, if you know how.

On 23 Mar 2007 17:03:00 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


Assume a player, call him "Homer", finds what he believes to be a bust
to a line. Then a second player, call him "Aristotle" thinks about
the bust and refutes it. Then, the bust wasn't a bust at all, was it?

Right. Like Fischer's King's Gambit bust.

I don't think you're seeing the picture.

'cause it feels so good when I stop.

You've stopped? Yikes.

Well, the good feeling wears off after a while and one has to come
back for another hit.

On 24 Mar, 04:14, Mike Murray wrote:
On 23 Mar 2007 17:03:00 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"

wrote:
Assume a player, call him "Homer", finds what he believes to be a bust
to a line. Then a second player, call him "Aristotle" thinks about
the bust and refutes it. Then, the bust wasn't a bust at all, was it?
Right. Like Fischer's King's Gambit bust.

I don't think you're seeing the picture.

'cause it feels so good when I stop.
You've stopped? Yikes.

Well, the good feeling wears off after a while and one has to come
back for another hit.

You sound like one of the two guys with whom I shared a house in our
sophomore year at University.

Every Thursday night, he'd quit smoking, just before turning in. Every
Friday morning, when he woke up, he'd light a cigarette....

On 24 Mar, 01:14, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Mar, 19:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...

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.

The better players these days are machines.

True.

They do not
"believe" that chess is a draw,

True.

and they draw far
less frequently than humans.

Owing to mismatches in playing strength, for various reasons, yes, but
match two systems of similar strength and you'll get a lot of draws.

How many, exactly? As many as between humans of the same strength?


Clearly not. Chess between humans of the same strength has been played
for hundreds of years.

Look it up and you'll find that the answer is no.


Well DUH! As usual, you miss the point. Moron.


But your moronic chant that "chess is a draw" is *equally*
true for both.


It's not a chant, it's an assertion of fact. And yes, it is equally
true that chess is a draw whether it's played between humans or
between computers.

Fundamentalists like yourself revel in the fact that
your mind is closed -

On the contrary, as I wrote to Mike Murray in this very thread,
[because I have a scientific bent] I am big on EVIDENCE. ****ALL****
of the EVIDENCE ****clearly**** indicates that chess is a draw. Will
this *ever* penetrate your thick skull, or are you just irredeemably
****ing dumb, troll?


see virtue in the fact that you aren't
tempted to consider other explanations.

I *shall* consider other explanations as soon as some *evidence* in
support of other explanations comes to light. That's the strength of
science, it seems to me--the fact that it is fallible. This one,
however, will outlast the two of us.

The price you pay for
that certainty of world view is that you don't get to
participate in the world of ideas.

Completely false. You know nothing of what I do and don't do. You
begin to sound like many a deranged troll. Are you deranged, or just a
****wit?

I sense a (very
small) amount of dissatisfaction with that situation
you have selected for yourself.

Your senses deceive you.

Some small part of
your mind does want to think, but it is at war with
your personality. Unfortunately, that's a war whose
outcome I cannot influence.


You may be able to exert an influence upon me if you could acknowledge
that my holding the position I do is predicated upon the fact that all
of the available evidence indicates that chess is a draw. Any position
to the contrary is based on blind, ignorant faith.







The machines are designed
to play chess,

No, they're not, they're designed to perform simple binary arithmetic,
and to compare numerical values. They're programmed to do lots of
things. One of the things that they *simulate* REALLY well is playing
chess, owing to its being a closed system. The reason why machines
generate moves better than humans play is that they *calculate*
further, and more accurately. They're not *playing* chess, however,
they're just performing binary arithmetic and comparing numerical
values.

whereas humans are driven by *non-chess*
factors.

Not necessarily driven, but they're a factor. The *fact* that chess is
a draw is a bigger factor, though. If chess were not inherently a draw
there would be fewer draws.

Prove it, if you know how.

Read an Informator, ****witted troll.

On 24 Mar 2007 17:24:02 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:


Assume a player, call him "Homer", finds what he believes to be a bust
to a line. Then a second player, call him "Aristotle" thinks about
the bust and refutes it.

But, what's the picture, Houlsby? You're still not seeing the picture.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 24 Mar, 01:14, "David Kane" wrote:

True.

They do not
"believe" that chess is a draw,

True.

and they draw far
less frequently than humans.

Owing to mismatches in playing strength, for various reasons, yes, but
match two systems of similar strength and you'll get a lot of draws.

How many, exactly? As many as between humans of the same strength?


Clearly not. Chess between humans of the same strength has been played
for hundreds of years.

Look it up and you'll find that the answer is no.


Well DUH! As usual, you miss the point. Moron.


But your moronic chant that "chess is a draw" is *equally*
true for both.


It's not a chant, it's an assertion of fact. And yes, it is equally
true that chess is a draw whether it's played between humans or
between computers.

Fundamentalists like yourself revel in the fact that
your mind is closed -

On the contrary, as I wrote to Mike Murray in this very thread,
[because I have a scientific bent] I am big on EVIDENCE. ****ALL****
of the EVIDENCE ****clearly**** indicates that chess is a draw. Will
this *ever* penetrate your thick skull, or are you just irredeemably
****ing dumb, troll?

You do not, even remotely, have a scientific bent.
A scientist is not satisfied by mindlessly repeating
a belief that does not explain the observed phenomena.



see virtue in the fact that you aren't
tempted to consider other explanations.

I *shall* consider other explanations as soon as some *evidence* in
support of other explanations comes to light. That's the strength of
science, it seems to me--the fact that it is fallible. This one,
however, will outlast the two of us.

The price you pay for
that certainty of world view is that you don't get to
participate in the world of ideas.

Completely false. You know nothing of what I do and don't do. You
begin to sound like many a deranged troll. Are you deranged, or just a
****wit?

I sense a (very
small) amount of dissatisfaction with that situation
you have selected for yourself.

Your senses deceive you.

Some small part of
your mind does want to think, but it is at war with
your personality. Unfortunately, that's a war whose
outcome I cannot influence.


You may be able to exert an influence upon me if you could acknowledge
that my holding the position I do is predicated upon the fact that all
of the available evidence indicates that chess is a draw. Any position
to the contrary is based on blind, ignorant faith.

Sigh. You are still stuck on proving your
completely irrelevant hypothesis, which
you can't even bring yourself to state clearly.
(Chess is a "game", not a "draw") Nobody
has claimed that your belief that perfectly
played chess ends in a draw lacks supporting
evidence, though a few have pointed out that
you your notion of scientific "proof" is wacko
(and incidentally demonstrates your ignorance of
scientific thinking.)

The issue is whether this belief has anything to do with
observed GM draw rates. That has to be proven, not
merely asserted. That's something that your faith-based
approach to problems just can't deal with.

Previously I challenged you to list as many of the
possible reasons for draws between GMs you
can think of *and* the empirical evidence necessary
to confirm *each* one. That is what you need to
be able to do if you want to think like a scientist.
It's not always easy, especially when one has become
emotionally attached to a certain explanation.