As some of you might recall, our sage help bot has
explained draws in professional chess as being
the result of some mysterious "lack of motivation"
of the game's GMs. His "evidence" was
none other than his personal experience playing
at some non-elite level - even that unspecified.

When faced with actual evidence of GM
tournaments, help bot becomes unable to
process it.. But that does not stop it
from being presented.

Here are the results for Linares 2007:
Total draw percentage: 67%
Winner's draw percentage: 64.3% (Anand)
Minimum draw percentage: 42.9% (Carlsen)
Maximum draw percentage: 85.7% (Aronian, Svidler)

This strongly supports the idea that playing in a
way that produces draws is the way to the top
of the chess world. It is not a lack of
motivation which produces draws, but rather a
motivation *to be the best and win prestigious
events* which produces them. Drawing pays
in the current scoring system.

As far as the games themseleves, there seem to be
a number of barely contested games - consistent with
the notion that GMs believe draws to be a good
outcome.

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:
As some of you might recall, our sage help bot

Presumably, you're comparing Kennedy with the herb.

has
explained draws in professional chess as being
the result of some mysterious "lack of motivation"
of the game's GMs. His "evidence" was
none other than his personal experience playing
at some non-elite level - even that unspecified.

When faced with actual evidence of GM
tournaments, help bot becomes unable to
process it.. But that does not stop it
from being presented.


Welcome to Usenet.

Here are the results for Linares 2007:
Total draw percentage: 67%
Winner's draw percentage: 64.3% (Anand)
Minimum draw percentage: 42.9% (Carlsen)
Maximum draw percentage: 85.7% (Aronian, Svidler)

This strongly supports the idea that playing in a
way that produces draws is the way to the top
of the chess world. It is not a lack of
motivation which produces draws, but rather a
motivation *to be the best and win prestigious
events* which produces them. Drawing pays
in the current scoring system.


On top of which, chess is a draw. So that's a factor, especially at
the Super GM level.

As far as the games themseleves, there seem to be
a number of barely contested games - consistent with
the notion that GMs believe draws to be a good
outcome.


Yup. The object is not *to win*, but rather *not to lose*. If one's
opponent fails not to lose, then one wins... otherwise a draw is good.

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:


To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.


That's not what was said at all. What was said that
this is evidence against the idea that draws result
from players approaching draw-producing perfection
in their games - an often claimed but rarely supported
theory.

So, in a small way, it supports the counter theory that
high draw rates result from factors external to the game,
such as the scoring system.

On 12 Mar, 00:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.

That's not what was said at all.

Sure it was. I'll quote you verbatim:

"I think the Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is a good
counterexample. The last 18 moves were in an ending with a mere 6
pieces, "simple" enough to appear in tablebase libraries [sic]. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the world's best.".

That's what you wrote. So...logically... had that same ending been
played not by Messrs. Morozevich and Topalov, but by a tablebase
it'd've contained not one, not three but ZERO errors...

So that WAS what was said, whether you intended it or not.

What was said that
this is evidence against the idea that draws result
from players approaching draw-producing perfection
in their games - an often claimed but rarely supported
theory.


Never supported might be more accurate. Show me one example of a
human's playing a 6-piece endgame perfectly (without tablebase
assistance).

None of this is new.

So, in a small way, it supports the counter theory that
high draw rates result from factors external to the game,
such as the scoring system.

How does it do that?

Demonstrate that it does, giving concrete examples.

It seems to me that on the contrary the single most important factor
is that chess *is* a draw, and that GMs understand this fact, even
when they're playing for a win with black (for whatever reason).

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 12 Mar, 00:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.

That's not what was said at all.

Sure it was. I'll quote you verbatim:

"I think the Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is a good
counterexample. The last 18 moves were in an ending with a mere 6
pieces, "simple" enough to appear in tablebase libraries [sic]. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the world's best.".

That's what you wrote. So...logically... had that same ending been
played not by Messrs. Morozevich and Topalov, but by a tablebase
it'd've contained not one, not three but ZERO errors...

So that WAS what was said, whether you intended it or not.

Which demonstrated that even the world's best players
err in positions easy enough to be included in a tablebase.

What was said that
this is evidence against the idea that draws result
from players approaching draw-producing perfection
in their games - an often claimed but rarely supported
theory.


Never supported might be more accurate. Show me one example of a
human's playing a 6-piece endgame perfectly (without tablebase
assistance).

The point is that 6-piece endgames far easier than
typical positions that occur in chess, yet super-GMs still
blow them. Of course there is nothing special about
tablebase positions, but in practice they are easier
to discuss because it is obvious where the mistakes
are.


None of this is new.

So, in a small way, it supports the counter theory that
high draw rates result from factors external to the game,
such as the scoring system.

How does it do that?

Demonstrate that it does, giving concrete examples.

I just *gave* an example.

It seems to me that on the contrary the single most important factor
is that chess *is* a draw, and that GMs understand this fact, even
when they're playing for a win with black (for whatever reason).


It is always amusing to me the lengths of illogic
people are willing to go to in order to defend
draws! First, you assert without proof
or evidence that the game is a draw. The goal
is to decide between various possibilities an answer to
the question "*Why* are there so many draws
at the GM level?" In reality we don't know
whether chess is a draw and neither
you nor I can prove it. (Remember that if
chess is a win for White it may very well
come from what we see as double-edged
and risky play, which GMs avoid). More
importantly, even if you are correct,
it logically doesn't make your case. Why not?
Because you would still have to show that
actual GM draws are contested and error
free. Of course no one ever attempts this
showing, for good reason.


On the other side, there are several arguments
that the high GM draw rates are *not* solely
a result of a theorized draw result. First, we have
the sort of example above (Morozevich-Topalov)
- even the best players play far from perfectly.
Second, we know that some draws are "GM
draws" which are not contested at
all. Given that fact, how do we know that *any*
games are *fully* contested? We don't, and can't
really expect to learn much from GM games
until we can contrast them with outcomes that
we know are fully contested. From the limited
experiments that have been performed trying to
produce fully contested games, we do see
differences. Third, when machines play chess,
they play at a higher level yet draw
at a lower rate. This means that the draw rate
can not be explained by the game's move
tree - there must be something else going
on.

On 13 Mar, 15:58, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 12 Mar, 00:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.

That's not what was said at all.

Sure it was. I'll quote you verbatim:

"I think the Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is a good
counterexample. The last 18 moves were in an ending with a mere 6
pieces, "simple" enough to appear in tablebase libraries [sic]. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the world's best.".

That's what you wrote. So...logically... had that same ending been
played not by Messrs. Morozevich and Topalov, but by a tablebase
it'd've contained not one, not three but ZERO errors...

So that WAS what was said, whether you intended it or not.

Which demonstrated that even the world's best players
err in positions easy enough to be included in a tablebase.


Right. I think we've been here before (like four posts ago).

What was said that
this is evidence against the idea that draws result
from players approaching draw-producing perfection
in their games - an often claimed but rarely supported
theory.

Never supported might be more accurate. Show me one example of a
human's playing a 6-piece endgame perfectly (without tablebase
assistance).

The point is that 6-piece endgames far easier than
typical positions that occur in chess,

Oh, are they indeed? Several positions with many more pieces on the
board are much clearer than any 6-piece endgame.

yet super-GMs still
blow them.

Blow them? Or commit minor and insubstantial inaccuracies? Of course,
they blunder, everybody does, but they *understand* 6-piece endgames
better than we do, which accounts, in large measure, for their *being*
super-GM's and our not being....


Of course there is nothing special about
tablebase positions, but in practice they are easier
to discuss because it is obvious where the mistakes
are.


Are they? So give some analysis, like I asked.

None of this is new.

So, in a small way, it supports the counter theory that
high draw rates result from factors external to the game,
such as the scoring system.

How does it do that?

Demonstrate that it does, giving concrete examples.

I just *gave* an example.


You cited a game, but you didn't present any analysis in support of
your argument, was my point.

It seems to me that on the contrary the single most important factor
is that chess *is* a draw, and that GMs understand this fact, even
when they're playing for a win with black (for whatever reason).

It is always amusing to me the lengths of illogic
people are willing to go to in order to defend
draws! First, you assert without proof
or evidence that the game is a draw.

There's a ton of evidence, dude. Check the archive. This used to be
discussed every couple of months in these groups.

I've posted reams and reams on the subject. Get with the program. The
fact is that (besides losing on time) no game is ever lost without a
decisive mistake. If you know better, present the evidence. The
evidence in *support* of the above *fact* is to be found in every
database, every Informator, every New In Chess Yearbook, every...

The goal
is to decide between various possibilities an answer to
the question "*Why* are there so many draws
at the GM level?" In reality we don't know
whether chess is a draw and neither
you nor I can prove it.

Scientific proof is easy. Mathematical proof is irrelevant. I take it
you know the difference between the two, or are you just whistling
Dixie?

We *know* that chess is a draw. That's why there are so many draws at
GM level. Mystery solved.

(Remember that if
chess is a win for White it may very well
come from what we see as double-edged
and risky play, which GMs avoid).

Give some analysis in support of this assertion (BTW, I've read "The
System" by Hans Berliner).

More
importantly, even if you are correct,
it logically doesn't make your case. Why not?

I have made my case logically, if you bother to check the archive.

Because you would still have to show that
actual GM draws are contested and error
free. Of course no one ever attempts this
showing, for good reason.


Nonsense. Have you ever actually *read* an Informator?

On the other side, there are several arguments
that the high GM draw rates are *not* solely
a result of a theorized draw result.

No, of course not solely, but largely.

First, we have
the sort of example above (Morozevich-Topalov)
- even the best players play far from perfectly.

So what?

Second, we know that some draws are "GM
draws" which are not contested at
all.

How do you know? Analyse one.

Given that fact,

Prove that it's a fact. Analyse one.

how do we know that *any*
games are *fully* contested?

They end in checkmate, or KPk, or KBk, or Kkp, or... that's how. DUH!

We don't, and can't
really expect to learn much from GM games
until we can contrast them with outcomes that
we know are fully contested.

You've never read an Informator, have you?

From the limited
experiments that have been performed trying to
produce fully contested games, we do see
differences.

Give examples.

Third, when machines play chess,
they play at a higher level yet draw
at a lower rate. This means that the draw rate
can not be explained by the game's move
tree - there must be something else going
on.

Sure. Processor speeds, programs' respective horizons. Quality of
algorithms.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 13 Mar, 15:58, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 12 Mar, 00:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.

That's not what was said at all.

Sure it was. I'll quote you verbatim:

"I think the Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is a good
counterexample. The last 18 moves were in an ending with a mere 6
pieces, "simple" enough to appear in tablebase libraries [sic]. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the world's best.".

That's what you wrote. So...logically... had that same ending been
played not by Messrs. Morozevich and Topalov, but by a tablebase
it'd've contained not one, not three but ZERO errors...

So that WAS what was said, whether you intended it or not.

Which demonstrated that even the world's best players
err in positions easy enough to be included in a tablebase.


Right. I think we've been here before (like four posts ago).

What was said that
this is evidence against the idea that draws result
from players approaching draw-producing perfection
in their games - an often claimed but rarely supported
theory.

Never supported might be more accurate. Show me one example of a
human's playing a 6-piece endgame perfectly (without tablebase
assistance).

The point is that 6-piece endgames far easier than
typical positions that occur in chess,

Oh, are they indeed? Several positions with many more pieces on the
board are much clearer than any 6-piece endgame.

yet super-GMs still
blow them.

Blow them? Or commit minor and insubstantial inaccuracies? Of course,
they blunder, everybody does, but they *understand* 6-piece endgames
better than we do, which accounts, in large measure, for their *being*
super-GM's and our not being....


Of course there is nothing special about
tablebase positions, but in practice they are easier
to discuss because it is obvious where the mistakes
are.


Are they? So give some analysis, like I asked.

None of this is new.

So, in a small way, it supports the counter theory that
high draw rates result from factors external to the game,
such as the scoring system.

How does it do that?

Demonstrate that it does, giving concrete examples.

I just *gave* an example.


You cited a game, but you didn't present any analysis in support of
your argument, was my point.

Since the positions are in tablebase
libraries, there is no "analysis" required. Just look it up.
The result (once down to 6 pieces) went from
draw - win - draw -win. That's the 3 errors.



It seems to me that on the contrary the single most important factor
is that chess *is* a draw, and that GMs understand this fact, even
when they're playing for a win with black (for whatever reason).

It is always amusing to me the lengths of illogic
people are willing to go to in order to defend
draws! First, you assert without proof
or evidence that the game is a draw.

There's a ton of evidence, dude. Check the archive. This used to be
discussed every couple of months in these groups.

I've posted reams and reams on the subject. Get with the program. The
fact is that (besides losing on time) no game is ever lost without a
decisive mistake. If you know better, present the evidence. The
evidence in *support* of the above *fact* is to be found in every
database, every Informator, every New In Chess Yearbook, every...

The goal
is to decide between various possibilities an answer to
the question "*Why* are there so many draws
at the GM level?" In reality we don't know
whether chess is a draw and neither
you nor I can prove it.

Scientific proof is easy. Mathematical proof is irrelevant. I take it
you know the difference between the two, or are you just whistling
Dixie?

We *know* that chess is a draw. That's why there are so many draws at
GM level. Mystery solved.

This is the classic example of circular reasoning.
To be honest, the rest of your post suggests
that you don't understand your own argument.

Yours is a valid hypothesis (unlike help bots
"lack of motivation theory"), but you've not
supported it all, nor addressed the counter
arguments.

"Because I read something in Informator"
does not pass for evidence.



(Remember that if
chess is a win for White it may very well
come from what we see as double-edged
and risky play, which GMs avoid).

Give some analysis in support of this assertion (BTW, I've read "The
System" by Hans Berliner).

More
importantly, even if you are correct,
it logically doesn't make your case. Why not?

I have made my case logically, if you bother to check the archive.

Because you would still have to show that
actual GM draws are contested and error
free. Of course no one ever attempts this
showing, for good reason.


Nonsense. Have you ever actually *read* an Informator?

If you have something significant to cite, then do
so.


On the other side, there are several arguments
that the high GM draw rates are *not* solely
a result of a theorized draw result.

No, of course not solely, but largely.

First, we have
the sort of example above (Morozevich-Topalov)
- even the best players play far from perfectly.

So what?

Second, we know that some draws are "GM
draws" which are not contested at
all.

How do you know? Analyse one.

Given that fact,

Prove that it's a fact. Analyse one.

how do we know that *any*
games are *fully* contested?

They end in checkmate, or KPk, or KBk, or Kkp, or... that's how. DUH!

We don't, and can't
really expect to learn much from GM games
until we can contrast them with outcomes that
we know are fully contested.

You've never read an Informator, have you?

From the limited
experiments that have been performed trying to
produce fully contested games, we do see
differences.

Give examples.

Third, when machines play chess,
they play at a higher level yet draw
at a lower rate. This means that the draw rate
can not be explained by the game's move
tree - there must be something else going
on.

Sure. Processor speeds, programs' respective horizons. Quality of
algorithms.

On 13 Mar, 22:18, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 13 Mar, 15:58, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 12 Mar, 00:15, "David Kane" wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message

roups.com...

On 11 Mar, 18:57, "David Kane" wrote:

To the thesis that draws are the natural
outcome of a well-played game and that high
draw rates are simply a manifestation of
players playing well, I think the
Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is
a good counterexample. The last 18 moves
were in an ending with a mere 6 pieces, "simple"
enough to appear in tablebase libraries. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the
world's best.

So... what you're saying is that tablebases play endgames better than
humans....

Amazing.

That's not what was said at all.

Sure it was. I'll quote you verbatim:

"I think the Morozevich-Topalov game in round 13 is a good
counterexample. The last 18 moves were in an ending with a mere 6
pieces, "simple" enough to appear in tablebase libraries [sic]. Yet it
contains not one but three errors made by the world's best.".

That's what you wrote. So...logically... had that same ending been
played not by Messrs. Morozevich and Topalov, but by a tablebase
it'd've contained not one, not three but ZERO errors...

So that WAS what was said, whether you intended it or not.

Which demonstrated that even the world's best players
err in positions easy enough to be included in a tablebase.

Right. I think we've been here before (like four posts ago).

What was said that
this is evidence against the idea that draws result
from players approaching draw-producing perfection
in their games - an often claimed but rarely supported
theory.

Never supported might be more accurate. Show me one example of a
human's playing a 6-piece endgame perfectly (without tablebase
assistance).

The point is that 6-piece endgames far easier than
typical positions that occur in chess,

Oh, are they indeed? Several positions with many more pieces on the
board are much clearer than any 6-piece endgame.

yet super-GMs still
blow them.

Blow them? Or commit minor and insubstantial inaccuracies? Of course,
they blunder, everybody does, but they *understand* 6-piece endgames
better than we do, which accounts, in large measure, for their *being*
super-GM's and our not being....

Of course there is nothing special about
tablebase positions, but in practice they are easier
to discuss because it is obvious where the mistakes
are.

Are they? So give some analysis, like I asked.

None of this is new.

So, in a small way, it supports the counter theory that
high draw rates result from factors external to the game,
such as the scoring system.

How does it do that?

Demonstrate that it does, giving concrete examples.

I just *gave* an example.

You cited a game, but you didn't present any analysis in support of
your argument, was my point.

Since the positions are in tablebase
libraries, there is no "analysis" required.

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

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


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






It seems to me that on the contrary the single most important factor
is that chess *is* a draw, and that GMs understand this fact, even
when they're playing for a win with black (for whatever reason).

It is always amusing to me the lengths of illogic
people are willing to go to in order to defend
draws! First, you assert without proof
or evidence that the game is a draw.

There's a ton of evidence, dude. Check the archive. This used to be
discussed every couple of months in these groups.

I've posted reams and reams on the subject. Get with the program. The
fact is that (besides losing on time) no game is ever lost without a
decisive mistake. If you know better, present the evidence. The
evidence in *support* of the above *fact* is to be found in every
database, every Informator, every New In Chess Yearbook, every...

The goal
is to decide between various possibilities an answer to
the question "*Why* are there so many draws
at the GM level?" In reality we don't know
whether chess is a draw and neither
you nor I can prove it.

Scientific proof is easy. Mathematical proof is irrelevant. I take it
you know the difference between the two, or are you just whistling
Dixie?

We *know* that chess is a draw. That's why there are so many draws at
GM level. Mystery solved.

This is the classic example of circular reasoning.
To be honest, the rest of your post suggests
that you don't understand your own argument.


How so?

Yours is a valid hypothesis (unlike help bots
"lack of motivation theory"), but you've not
supported it all, nor addressed the counter
arguments.


Sure I have. Have you read the archive?

"Because I read something in Informator"
does not pass for evidence.


No, but what I've posted does. Have you read it?







(Remember that if
chess is a win for White it may very well
come from what we see as double-edged
and risky play, which GMs avoid).

Give some analysis in support of this assertion (BTW, I've read "The
System" by Hans Berliner).

More
importantly, even if you are correct,
it logically doesn't make your case. Why not?

I have made my case logically, if you bother to check the archive.

Because you would still have to show that
actual GM draws are contested and error
free. Of course no one ever attempts this
showing, for good reason.

Nonsense. Have you ever actually *read* an Informator?

If you have something significant to cite, then do
so.


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

On this evidence, it seems that *you* haven't understood the rest of
my post, neither have you read the archive, nor examined any of the
evidence. Is it worth arguing with you? I doubt it.

Prove me wrong.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 13 Mar, 22:18, "David Kane" wrote:


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

Why would I need to know them in order to determine that
the players blundered? I can just look them up. Why
can't you do the same?


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


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

Apparently. What was your point? My point was that
in positions simple enough for the tablebase to have
been calculated, the world's best players blunder. The
(unproven) factor you're basing your argument on ("chess
is a draw") wasn't enough to lead to a draw in the
example, so why should it be in the fuller more complex
game?


snipped

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

Drawn games *also* contain errors. As I've said, even if you
prove that chess is a draw (I'm not holding my breath),
that does *not* make the case that it is responsible for draw
rates. If GMs had the 32-piece tablebase memorized (like
Tic-Tac-Toe players) then you'd have a point.


On this evidence, it seems that *you* haven't understood the rest of
my post, neither have you read the archive, nor examined any of the
evidence. Is it worth arguing with you? I doubt it.

Prove me wrong.


I certainly have not, nor will not, read "the archive", whatever
that is, unless you give me some idea that it contains something
useful.

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

ups.com...

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

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

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

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

I can just look them up.

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


Why
can't you do the same?


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



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

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

Apparently. What was your point?

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

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

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

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


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

snipped

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

Drawn games *also* contain errors.

Sure. Does perfect play? Discuss.

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

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

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


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




On this evidence, it seems that *you* haven't understood the rest of
my post, neither have you read the archive, nor examined any of the
evidence. Is it worth arguing with you? I doubt it.

Prove me wrong.

I certainly have not, nor will not, read "the archive", whatever
that is, unless you give me some idea that it contains something
useful.

Ok, but that places you at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion.