Re: Draws at Linares 2007


"Mark Houlsby" <mark.houlsby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1174860461.928834.125030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 25 Mar, 17:23, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1174827758.537636.177240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On 25 Mar, 03:57, "David Kane" <davidek...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sigh. You are still stuck on proving your
completely irrelevant hypothesis,

It's *not* a hypothesis. It's an established fact.

which
you can't even bring yourself to state clearly.
(Chess is a "game", not a "draw")

Well DUH! You've heard of shorthand, I take it.

Nobody
has claimed that your belief that perfectly
played chess ends in a draw lacks supporting
evidence,

You have, several times. Every time you post this ***, you have,
whether you mean to do it or not.

though a few have pointed out that
you your notion of scientific "proof" is wacko
(and incidentally demonstrates your ignorance of
scientific thinking.)

Nonsense. Ask any scientist. You're fucking clueless, dude.

The issue is whether this belief has anything to do with
observed GM draw rates.

Right, and clearly, it does, otherwise GMs wouldn't draw so early, so
often. Like I said at the start, and here we are nearly two weeks
later, and STILL you're incapable of accepting what is blatantly
obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence who is even remotely
interested.

No. There are *other* more reasonable explanations for
some draws that have nothing to do with the outcome of the
perfectly played game.

Hardly more reasonable. Possibly more pertinent (the players agree a
draw on move one because they have a 'plane to catch). The *fact* that
chess is inherently drawn is always the underlying reason, however. If
it were not so, draws should be considerably more rare.

What about draws between two 5-year-olds (approximately your debate level)?
Do you think those are also explained by chess' presumed drawn result
with perfect play?

Do you have any actual experience
with chess?


Do you seriously expect an answer to that? Only an idiot would *ask*
such a question.

I'll take that as a "no".

That has to be proven, not
merely asserted.

It HAS been. DUH! If you know differently, show me a game which
reaches a lost position which *does not* contain a decisive mistake.
Otherwise SHUT THE *** UP, YOU MORONIC TROLL.

Now you are showing your poor logic skills.

No, you're the one with poor logic skills. Advocating a point-of-view
for which there is no evidence, while at the same time berating
someone for being unscientific because they hold a position as a
result of having studied the available evidence... THAT'S very
illogical. Moronic, even.

Even if you could
prove that every lost game has a decisive mistake (you haven't),

It's scientifically proved. If *you* know different... show us the
paradigm. Or shut the *** up.

that by itself does not explain why actual draws occur.


It's the underlying reason why, as I keep telling you. You really are
an irredeemable moron.

If that's the underlying reason, you should not have to keep
telling me. You should be able to tell me *why* and *how*
it is the underlying reason, something you haven't done even
once.







Previously I challenged you to list as many of the
possible reasons for draws between GMs you
can think of *and* the empirical evidence necessary
to confirm *each* one. That is what you need to
be able to do if you want to think like a scientist.

No, it's not. that's like saying in order to think like a scientist
it's necessary not only to investigate the Big Bang theory and prove
it unequivocally, but also to investigate Creationism and disprove it
unequivocally. Clearly, you DON'T understand the scientific method. I
do hope that you're not a professional scientist.

It's not always easy, especially when one has become
emotionally attached to a certain explanation.

There IS no emotional attachment here. I've examined the evidence is
all. That chess is a draw is perfectly obvious.

Saying that something is obvious is not a sound argument.

Basing it on ALL of the available evidence *is*. Jesus, but you're a
FUCKWIT.

Creationism seems perfectly obvious to many (possibly
a majority).

I seriously doubt that, dude. Have you heard of a country called
"China"? Do you know what the most popular faith amongst Chinese
people is? Creationism is far from obvious to anyone who hasn't been
exposed to Christianity, and is possibly repugnant to a majority of
Christians. So you're fucking ignorant as well as fucking dumb.

The scientific explanation for our observations of living beings
(evolution) is very recent. It is unobvious enough to have been
unknown to mankind (including the Chinese) for millenia.
Given the level of intellect you've displayed in this thread, I'd be
very surprised if you understood it.

Do go on, this is really interesting....

But science has developed a less obvious
but more powerful theory.

Less obvious than Creationism? To whom? Creationists? Ok. Everyone
else? Don't think so, fucking ignorant moron.

Quantum mechanics
is anything but "obvious", but it explains an enormous
array of phenomena.


Right. It's a paradigm, which works under the conditions to which it
is intended to be applied. Same way as chess is a draw.

Quantum mechanics explains just about everything to do with
matter/light etc. You have not been able to use your
"chess is a draw" theory to explain a single thing.

Scientifically, you've got a reasonable hypothesis that
has not yet been shown to have any bearing on the
matter under discussion. I'm sorry if you don't like
that.

I will let your ignorance of chess slide, but your
ignorance of science gives science a bad name.

How does my being ignorant of science give it a bad name? In whose
estimation? Who gives a ***, anyways?

You are using the language of science without understanding
the principles upon which science is based. Your behavior
is very similar to that of creationists, who often falsely
call themselves scientists.


.

Loading