Author: Graham Laight
Date: 07:36:02 03/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2000 at 07:21:12, Frederic Friedel wrote: >On March 17, 2000 at 06:00:20, Marc Plum wrote: > >>It is only an assumption that the result of best play >>is a draw. Perhaps if computers do eventually solve the game, it will turn out >>to be a forced win for White, or even Black. I don't believe that this is true, >>but it can't be completely discounted. This is true. I am basing the assumption on the general observation that the higher the standard of play, the higher the proportion of draws. >> > >Black wins. A friend of Billy Graham worked it out. The initial position is >reciprocal zugzwang. Both 1.d4 and 1.b3 put up the greatest resistance and delay Eh? What??? This sounds like nonsense to me! How did friend of Billy Graham (FOBG) "work it out"? Has FOBG put his work into the public domain? When did FOBG carry out this "divine" piece of work? Why do GMs who play black continue to lose? Why don't they just sit and "work it out" like good old FOBG did? Is FOBG God? Who has verified the work of FOBG? Why is the work of FOBG accepted without question? If FOBG is God, how was this discovery communicated to the human community? Is FOBG > God? Is Kasparov > God? Is Kasparov just toying with us when he plays black and fails to win? Is the whole of chess a great psychological ploy to keep us all from real mischief? What about the team of mathematicians who worked out a way to see 30-40 moves ahead using formulae about 3 years ago - wouldn't they have discovered this forced win? Isn't 34 moves almost within range a DB, if left for a year or so? Would FOBG go to any lengths for some publicity? All these questions must be answered... -g >the forced mate for 34 moves. Interestingly 1.d4 d5?? actually loses for Black >(1.d4 d6? is a draw).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.