Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 00:41:19 05/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2005 at 03:13:00, chandler yergin wrote: >On May 20, 2005 at 20:42:14, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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? > >Yes, probably most of them. No, you wouldn't. >As long as there is the human element, a battle of wills and ideas, the game >will continue to be Wins, Losses & Draws. Three possible outcomes, the >Percentages are yet to be determined. We have a broad database on that. Karpov was pleased with the level of chess today and the increasing level of draws. > >>Besides, you beleive it to be a draw so what's your damn problem?! > >No, I don't believe it can be proven now or ever. Don't be so certain. >The player that moves first has an advantage. Very small...it's worth at best 20 rating points. It drops rapidly, after ten moves it is hardly apparent. >Whether this initiative can be nullified with perfect play can not be >determined. Nor can perfect play ever be determined. Yeah, I've heard this how many times now? Too many! >You can speculate that with 'perfect' play on both sides it should be. >That does not make it so. This is not Tic tac toe. Really? As if I hadn't noticed...and it's not relevent. >We can only list the millions of game that have been played since Chess >was invented as a game, & review the results. >We have done that. Yes, and it favours the draw Chan. Now for KK. http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?427154 There is a way to statistically prove it which is not a mathematical proof of course. What you do is look at results of matches between players of equal caliber . You look at different calibers(ie:rating).You then measure the draw results. You can also do it with different time control matches as well. If the % of draws goes up constantly all the way to the top ratings, and if your sample sizes are large enough then statistics would point to whether with perfect play chess is a draw or not. You would be hard pressed to find any GM who thinks chess is a win for white. KK
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.