Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:06:21 05/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2005 at 13:10:11, chandler yergin wrote: >On May 21, 2005 at 03:41:19, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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 do you consider Statistics are if not mathmatical? >Hmmm? > There's is a big difference between a mathmatical proof and statistics! > 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. > >No it won't. > >You cannot get a significant Sample Size! > Your Basic Premise is wrong! > > > You would be hard pressed to find any GM who thinks >>chess is a win for white. >>KK > > The Statistics speak for itself. > >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% >These are Rated Games from the Total played. > >As long as Chess is played between humans there are only 3 possible outcomes >Win Loss or Draw. > >There will always be a percentage of Draws among the Top Players. >So what? >It will never approach a significant Percentile. >White always has the advantage. Not enough of an advantage to win, you know that or at least you should know that. Let's leave it at that.
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.