Re: Draws at Linares 2007

On 24 Mar, 01:14, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1174695238.519528.310210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On 23 Mar, 19:15, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1174669003.773075.8730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 23 Mar, 16:11, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Inconnux" <everin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:u5GMh.1394$__3.614@xxxxxxxxxxx

Larry Tapper hit on the answer exactly. He noted
that "high-level players are canny utility maximizers".
They aren't maximizing good chess, they are maximizing
"highest tournament score". They aren't really
playing chess, they are engaging in a competition
which has chess as a component. They've
concluded that playing the best move is a
sub-optimal strategy and that it is better to
play a number of uncontested or partially
contested games.

"Just moments before I played this
move, the game Gerzhoy-Bluvshtein
ended in a draw. It meant I did not
have to win this game anymore. Following
my last move I immediately ofered
a draw to Pascal. He had no better
choice but to accept"

Yet his notes after 47.Bh5

"This wins too but I missed a pretty
checkmate 47.Rh5 Rh6 48.Rh6 Kh6
49.Rc2!! and black does not have a
good way to preventing checkmate"

So In a Zonal Final an IM admits to
having a won game but offers a draw

The real question is to what
quantitative degree are draw
rates inflated by these external
factors, and what can be done
about them.

In some sense I think it is a mistake
to focus on special cases like this
one, or the usual target of the
obviously uncontested GM draw,
because it leads people to overlook
that the same factors behind
those events have an insidious
influence throughout chess.

I posted this because it was an example
of an IM admitting publicly that he
offered a draw prematurely. How does
this affect the overall draw rate? I have
no idea. There are many examples
of fighting chess that end in a draw.
I doubt anyone has a problem with these
games.

A point worth considering:
Subjectively, everyone has seen, or played,
hard fought draws which seem to embody
the best of chess.

Best? Not sure. Most enjoyable/appreciable? Certainly.

Objectively, when
chess fans of the Corus tournament voted
for "the most elegant or most interesting
game", decisive games were 22 times as
likely to receive a vote as drawn games.

So, in other words, it was subjective, rather than objective.

How does this affect the local chess
tournaments? In the last tournament
I was in, in the last round the leader
found out that all he needed was a draw
and proceeded to offer his opponent a
draw before the game was started.
The TD immediately told him that that
was illegal to do. The game did end
up as a draw, but one has to wonder if
all he was playing for was a draw.
Since he was a young junior player, he
wasn't penalized for his draw offer.

Just as it is impossible to eliminate
all draws without radically changing
the underlying game, it would also be
impossible to completely eliminate
the external incentives to draw. But
they can certainly be reduced.

How, pray? All you'll do is chase away the better players who (as a
consequence of their being better players) understand that chess is a
draw, and use that fact in their tournament and match praxis.

The better players these days are machines.

True.

They do not
"believe" that chess is a draw,

True.

and they draw far
less frequently than humans.

Owing to mismatches in playing strength, for various reasons, yes, but
match two systems of similar strength and you'll get a lot of draws.

How many, exactly? As many as between humans of the same strength?


Clearly not. Chess between humans of the same strength has been played
for hundreds of years.

Look it up and you'll find that the answer is no.


Well DUH! As usual, you miss the point. Moron.


But your moronic chant that "chess is a draw" is *equally*
true for both.


It's not a chant, it's an assertion of fact. And yes, it is equally
true that chess is a draw whether it's played between humans or
between computers.

Fundamentalists like yourself revel in the fact that
your mind is closed -

On the contrary, as I wrote to Mike Murray in this very thread,
[because I have a scientific bent] I am big on EVIDENCE. ****ALL****
of the EVIDENCE ****clearly**** indicates that chess is a draw. Will
this *ever* penetrate your thick skull, or are you just irredeemably
fucking dumb, troll?


see virtue in the fact that you aren't
tempted to consider other explanations.

I *shall* consider other explanations as soon as some *evidence* in
support of other explanations comes to light. That's the strength of
science, it seems to me--the fact that it is fallible. This one,
however, will outlast the two of us.

The price you pay for
that certainty of world view is that you don't get to
participate in the world of ideas.

Completely false. You know nothing of what I do and don't do. You
begin to sound like many a deranged troll. Are you deranged, or just a
fuckwit?

I sense a (very
small) amount of dissatisfaction with that situation
you have selected for yourself.

Your senses deceive you.

Some small part of
your mind does want to think, but it is at war with
your personality. Unfortunately, that's a war whose
outcome I cannot influence.


You may be able to exert an influence upon me if you could acknowledge
that my holding the position I do is predicated upon the fact that all
of the available evidence indicates that chess is a draw. Any position
to the contrary is based on blind, ignorant faith.







The machines are designed
to play chess,

No, they're not, they're designed to perform simple binary arithmetic,
and to compare numerical values. They're programmed to do lots of
things. One of the things that they *simulate* REALLY well is playing
chess, owing to its being a closed system. The reason why machines
generate moves better than humans play is that they *calculate*
further, and more accurately. They're not *playing* chess, however,
they're just performing binary arithmetic and comparing numerical
values.

whereas humans are driven by *non-chess*
factors.

Not necessarily driven, but they're a factor. The *fact* that chess is
a draw is a bigger factor, though. If chess were not inherently a draw
there would be fewer draws.

Prove it, if you know how.

Read an Informator, fuckwitted troll.


.

Loading