David Kane wrote:
"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

Why do we say that White has an advantage
in the opening position? Because White *wins*
more often from that position. Period.

Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


In the position under discussion in FS #1, one can say
that both Black and White aren't going to win, so it
would be drawn.

"Still, still, far wide" as Cordelia said of
her father in King Lear.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

Why do we say that White has an advantage
in the opening position? Because White *wins*
more often from that position. Period.

Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results
from the opening position, would we still say that
White has an advantage? No. We conclude from
empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than
Black, so say that White has an advantage.

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does not in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in chess.

Gee, thanks. I'm sure I'll really benefit from that.

One can only hope.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

In fact, I gave an analogous example. I pointed out that many
K+P vs. K endings that are both theoretically and practically
drawn for players of a certain level (even your level),
would, in the hands of 6 year olds, produce a fair number
of wins for the side with the pawn. Didn't you read that?

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra piece?

Heck, I might even be tempted to play out a drawn K+P vs K,
but I wouldn't claim an advantage (unless perhaps I'm playing
one of those 6 year olds).

Do you understand that perhaps there is a difference in skill level
between a basic technical draw in K + P vs K and R + B vs R?

But my example is closer to the position under discussion than
your example.

I'm not discussing the position from the Fischer-Spassky match. I am
discussing your statement that there is no having an advantage without
having a win.

Of course there are plenty of harder positions in which
GMs might have difficulty achieving the theoretical result.

Agreed. Would you play on if you had an advantage in those positions?
But the question is whether *the position in game one that
we are discussing* is one of those positions. So far, neither
you nor help bot in your rush to attack Evans have given
any evidence to support that.

Phil, err, David, would you kindly show me where I "attacked" Evans
over this endgame? I've searched and I can't find it. I'll wait for the
apology.

OK, I guess you didn't attack Evans (in this thread). You were just
offering some mindless defenses of help bot's attacks. Sorry.

I haven't written anything about Evans' statements regarding the
position from the Fischer-Spassky game. I've tried, and apparently
failed, to convince David Foster Kane that the views he holds about
"advantage" are silly.

But to repeat, *is* the position in game one that we are
discussing one that GMs might have difficulty achieving
the theoretical result? If you see that it isn't,
could you please use those vaunted teaching skills
of yours on help bot instead of me?

Why? And where is the Fischer-Spassky endgame considered "theoretical?"
If it were known to be a draw in theory, then I would be very surprised
to see "helpbot", a poster who I suspect to be NM Greg Kennedy,
consider it otherwise. As it stands, an NM disagrees with a GM over the
merits of White's position. It's hardly the first time it's happened.
"Nothing to see here folks!"

So when GMs argue from
authority that the position is dead drawn, those
arguments carry the day.

WHY LIE?

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn? -- David Kane to Neil Brennen

Greg Kennedy's charge is, as usual, asinine.

What motive would Larry Evans have for lying about
a position that can be checked by every grandmaster
and computer in this galazy?

This Best Question was posed in Evans On Chess
(Chess Life, May 2001, page 16):

FISCHER'S MOST FAMOUS MOVE

Peter Kougasian * Pelham, New York

Q. Undoubtedly the most famous single move played in my
lifetime was 29...Bxh2 in Spassky-Fischer, 1st match game
1972. The popular press described it as a terrible gaffe, and
I even remember a report that Spassky looked up from the
board in disbelief. He trapped the bishop and eventually
Fischer resigned, yet my computer finds nothing wrong with
the pawn grab. Was it indeed the losing move?

A. [GM Evans quotes Frank Brady and Brad Darrach, then
analyzes the critical position after 40 Kh4.]

REUBEN FINE: "Every beginner knows that 29...Bxh2 is a blunder,
and it does lose, so why did Bobby do it? Afterwards he told me
he miscalculated, thinking that after 30 g3 h5 31 Ke2 h4 32 Kf3 h3
he could escape, but overlooking 33 Kg4 which traps the bishop.
I think that a psychological explanation is more in order. Bobby is
out to show that he can make what everybody would consider an
impossible move: caught up in this fantasy, he does not calculate
properly."

"Chess World Championship 1972 by Evans & Smith: 29...Bxh2?!
is a miscalculation, which is not fatal in itself, though most players
attributed Fischer's loss to the capture of the poisoned pawn. Black
is not content to settle for a draw and he wants to keep winning
chances alive. Having demonstrated that the champion could not
achieve the vestige of an advantage with White, Fischer now seems
to be saying, 'You can't draw with me that easily.'"


David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

Why do we say that White has an advantage
in the opening position? Because White *wins*
more often from that position. Period.

Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results
from the opening position, would we still say that
White has an advantage? No. We conclude from
empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than
Black, so say that White has an advantage.

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"David Kane" writes:
Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Huh? There's nothing mysterious about the concept of advantage.
For example, the starting position is almost certainly drawn, but
White has an advantage.

Why do we say that White has an advantage
in the opening position? Because White *wins*
more often from that position. Period.

Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results
from the opening position, would we still say that
White has an advantage? No. We conclude from
empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than
Black, so say that White has an advantage.

David Hooper presented a summary of Steinitzian theory in the BCM in
1984:

1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium.
2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to
a drawn game.

White is considered to have an advantage because having the first move
forces Black to restore the equilibrium. White wins more often because
it's often hard to find a move that restores the balance against best
play. This is not the same as saying that White wins more because he
moves first, which is what I think you are saying. If you accept the
second 'law' above, you also accept that a chess game can only be lost
because of an error - there are no winning moves, only losing ones,
since best play can only restore equilibrium. Thus, White has an
advantage, but no win, in the starting position.

Just for the record, do you, like helpbot, also believe
that Evans was lying when describing the position
as dead drawn?

I don't have a dog in that fight.

"David Kane" writes:
Err, David, very few chess games, even in your tournaments, are won
from the opening position. Guess again. The more likely explanation is
that White has the first move, and having the first move constitutes an
advantage - I believe it's been compared to having the serve in tennis.


Still not getting it. If White and Black had equal results from the
opening position, would we still say that White has an advantage?
No. We conclude from empirical evidence (not help bot's drug-induced
hallucinations) that White wins more often than Black, so say that
White has an advantage.

No, still not getting it. If I look in any issue of Informant,
there's hundreds of positions labelled "+/=" or "=/+" scattered
through the various games. Most of these positions have never
appeared in any other game, have never been played more than once, so
it's completely bogus to say there's empirical evidence that White (or
Black) has "won them more often". Most of those positions are in fact
likely to be theoretical draws. And yet, since we should reasonably
presume that the grandmasters annotating those games know what they're
doing, the +/= evaluations must mean SOMETHING. So I think the
criterion of "empirical evidence that White wins more often" is not
the right one.

The Historian wrote:

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra piece?

Yes, but I studied Philidor and then Benko. He wrote several good
articles on the win in CL, which showed up in his book of collected
articles.

There is a popular myth that it is dead drawn.... so I have had many
opponents go for it. One guy bothered me for a draw for 30 moves (the
TD was unsupportive) until I mated him. He claimed it was pure luck;
when I tried to show him what Benko taught me, he just shoved the
pieces into the middle of the board.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to
make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too
much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does not
in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in
chess.

Gee, thanks. I'm sure I'll really benefit from that.

One can only hope.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

In fact, I gave an analogous example. I pointed out that many
K+P vs. K endings that are both theoretically and practically
drawn for players of a certain level (even your level),
would, in the hands of 6 year olds, produce a fair number
of wins for the side with the pawn. Didn't you read that?

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra piece?

Heck, I might even be tempted to play out a drawn K+P vs K,
but I wouldn't claim an advantage (unless perhaps I'm playing
one of those 6 year olds).

Do you understand that perhaps there is a difference in skill level
between a basic technical draw in K + P vs K and R + B vs R?

*And* in the position under discussion. Would you rather take
Fischer's position before Bxh2, or the R side of R+B vs. R?

But my example is closer to the position under discussion than
your example.

I'm not discussing the position from the Fischer-Spassky match. I am
discussing your statement that there is no having an advantage without
having a win.

Where did I say that? I would say that there is no having an
advantage without having *winning chances*. And that is
a function of the position and opposition. If the position was
a simple draw for Fischer, then calling it "dead drawn" was
not only not a lie, but correct.

Of course there are plenty of harder positions in which
GMs might have difficulty achieving the theoretical result.

Agreed. Would you play on if you had an advantage in those positions?
But the question is whether *the position in game one that
we are discussing* is one of those positions. So far, neither
you nor help bot in your rush to attack Evans have given
any evidence to support that.

Phil, err, David, would you kindly show me where I "attacked" Evans
over this endgame? I've searched and I can't find it. I'll wait for the
apology.

OK, I guess you didn't attack Evans (in this thread). You were just
offering some mindless defenses of help bot's attacks. Sorry.

I haven't written anything about Evans' statements regarding the
position from the Fischer-Spassky game. I've tried, and apparently
failed, to convince David Foster Kane that the views he holds about
"advantage" are silly.

But to repeat, *is* the position in game one that we are
discussing one that GMs might have difficulty achieving
the theoretical result? If you see that it isn't,
could you please use those vaunted teaching skills
of yours on help bot instead of me?

Why? And where is the Fischer-Spassky endgame considered "theoretical?"
If it were known to be a draw in theory, then I would be very surprised
to see "helpbot", a poster who I suspect to be NM Greg Kennedy,
consider it otherwise. As it stands, an NM disagrees with a GM over the
merits of White's position. It's hardly the first time it's happened.
"Nothing to see here folks!"


You're not paying attention. Help bot has said
that Evans has *lied* about the position. And if
help bot (whom I know only from his postings here
which I generally agree with) wants to argue from
authority based on his high rating, then he can't do
so anonymously. I've never heard *anyone* take
help bot's position that Fischer would have been
hard-pressed to hold the draw, even though no
doubt just about every strong chess player in
the world is aware of the position. So authority
is not going to be on his side whatever his rating.

He's stuck providing actual evidence showing
plausible GMish winning white lines. Or in its
absence, admitting that he was wrong.




So when GMs argue from
authority that the position is dead drawn, those
arguments carry the day.

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

David Kane wrote:

Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.

Uh, David, that's after the game is over. While the game is being
played the game is being played.

If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn.

No, it's not. Either player may have enough of an advantage to
make
playing on the best choice.

You want to insist upon the existence of a mysterious
"advantage" that doesn't help you win, be my guest.

Straw man. And a straw man that shows you've perhaps spent too
much
time looking at kiddie chess.

Far from being a strawman, it's the essential flaw in
help bot's position. An advantage is something that
helps you win the game.

No, an advantage is something that means you are better. It does not
in
itself "help you win the the game". One can be better and not winning.

Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage.

You really don't get it, do you? I suggest you read Steinitz.

Sure he (or Fischer in this position) could
have dragged the game out, since there is no
rule forbidding players to play in dead drawn
positions. But it doesn't change Evans' accurate
description of the position.

If you choose to consider the position "dead drawn", then that is an
analytical dispute among yourself, Evans, and "helpbot." I am merely
trying patiently to educate you on the meaning of "advantage" in
chess.

Gee, thanks. I'm sure I'll really benefit from that.

One can only hope.

You *can* prove me wrong (but not by
insulting me.) You must demonstrate how
strong players might lose. Just show us
some GM-like continuations where White wins.

I don't need to, any more than I need to show how the player with the
extra piece wins the ending Rook and Bishop vs Rook. The ending is in
theory a draw; do you deny the player with the extra piece has an
advantage? Do you understand that against best play that advantage
isn't enough to win?

In fact, I gave an analogous example. I pointed out that many
K+P vs. K endings that are both theoretically and practically
drawn for players of a certain level (even your level),
would, in the hands of 6 year olds, produce a fair number
of wins for the side with the pawn. Didn't you read that?

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra piece?

Heck, I might even be tempted to play out a drawn K+P vs K,
but I wouldn't claim an advantage (unless perhaps I'm playing
one of those 6 year olds).

Do you understand that perhaps there is a difference in skill level
between a basic technical draw in K + P vs K and R + B vs R?

*And* in the position under discussion. Would you rather take
Fischer's position before Bxh2, or the R side of R+B vs. R?

If forced to choose between the two, Fischer's position. White's
advantage is less striking than in the pawnless ending.

But my example is closer to the position under discussion than
your example.

I'm not discussing the position from the Fischer-Spassky match. I am
discussing your statement that there is no having an advantage without
having a win.

Where did I say that?

Sigh. "Newsflash. Games are either won, lost or drawn.
If Black's not going to lose (or win), then it's (dead) drawn." - David
Foster Kane

"An advantage is something that
helps you win the game. Spassky had no chance
of winning the game, and hence no advantage." - David Foster Kane

David, I thought I gave up replying to this sort of debating technique
when I went on the Innes Wagon. I do so now. Please enjoy arguing chess
theory with Paul Rubin and "helpbot"; I am done with this.

wrote:
The Historian wrote:

Yes, I did, and found it a poor example. My R and B vs R example was
much better, since this ending is so complex even top level players
have problems with it. Knowing that the draw is very hard for the
Bishop-less side to hold, would you play on if you had the extra piece?

Yes, but I studied Philidor and then Benko. He wrote several good
articles on the win in CL, which showed up in his book of collected
articles.

And a nice book it is. Have you read Mednis on this endgame? Or Nunn in
his Secrets of Pawnless Endings?

There is a popular myth that it is dead drawn.... so I have had many
opponents go for it. One guy bothered me for a draw for 30 moves (the
TD was unsupportive) until I mated him. He claimed it was pure luck;
when I tried to show him what Benko taught me, he just shoved the
pieces into the middle of the board.