Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 17:42:14 05/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2005 at 19:50:00, chandler yergin wrote: >On May 20, 2005 at 18:42:57, Daniel Pineo wrote: > >>On May 20, 2005 at 03:45:37, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On May 20, 2005 at 03:21:34, jefkaan wrote: >>> >>>>On May 19, 2005 at 14:01:43, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>He certainly knows something of opening theory. He's a little passed 1.e4:o) >>>>> >>>>that's fine in a anti-computer style. >>>>but fundamentally 1.e4 is the best. >>>>it might be a solution of chess. >>>>but we wont know this of course until >>>>the year 3000 or so(*) >>>>best regards >>>>jef >>>>(*)yes chess also might be a draw; we don't know yet >>> >>>I do...it's a draw, and the proof is all around you in the chess world. > >Yes Terry, again assertions, no Proof. >How little you know. >Proving once again.. you don't know! >The 'evidence' is against your position! >The facts are against your position! > >Based on 1,114,334 Games >1-0 413,652 games = 34% > >1/2 1/2 381,463 games or 35% > >0-1 318,393 Games or 28% > >You have NO argument or point! > > > > >> >>And what might that proof be? I gave antidotal evidence, ie, one pawn up is 99% of the time a draw, there is statistical evidence that chess is a draw...number wins losses and draws...etc. No way in hell can the first half move win...it's value falls with every consective move played thereafter, barring any errors. Tell me Chan, do you know any GM's that would say chess isn't a draw? Besides, you beleive it to be a draw so what's your damn problem?!
This page took 0.01 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.