Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

[Uri Blass]

I do not know if the opening position is a draw.
I believe it is a draw but I am not sure about it.

It may be a win for white and I even have no proof that it is not a forced win for black.

It is clear that what I meant by the word conclusion is not only to the claim that the position is a draw but
to the logical explanation why it is a draw.

If a person is going to write in a math exam illogical claims in the way he solve the problem
then I think that he deserves 0 points even if he is lucky to get the final result correct.

[Ovyron]

I do not know if the opening position is a draw.

You have proven that we can't know that the conclusion is correct, that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

If a person is going to write in a math exam illogical claims in the way he solve the problem
then I think that he deserves 0 points even if he is lucky to get the final result correct.

If I used a random mover to play the rest of the game and got a draw, it'd be as valid as if I got the draw after all the analysis I'm doing.

One of the following statements is true:

-The position is a draw with perfect play, white can always find a defense against anything black plays.

-The position is lost for white with perfect play, black can always find a winning line against anything white plays.

We can't prove either but IFF the first statement is true then any conclusion that states it, is right, even if someone just flipped a coin to reach that conclusion.

[jp]

If I used a random mover to play the rest of the game and got a draw, it'd be as valid as if I got the draw after all the analysis I'm doing.

This is certainly not true.

[Ovyron]

Why not? You wouldn't even know.

[jp]

Saying it's "as valid" is like saying the statistics on an opening from U12 girls' championships are just as meaningful as statistics from superGM play. Do you really believe that? No need to worry about quality of games then.

[Ovyron]

Ah, the difference here is that Harvey would still be playing his strongest moves.

The point here is that if there's a series of moves that draw against Harvey's best analysis, those moves are valid by themselves, it doesn't matter from where they come from.

In your analogy, it's like matching up the U12 girls against the GMs, and taking a look at the games where the U12 girls drew or won their games against them. What I'd be saying is that those games are valid, because the U12 girls played at the level of them.

If a random mover drew a game against a correspondence chess players its moves would be valid by themselves, regardless of how they came to be.

[jp]

Ah, the difference here is that Harvey would still be playing his strongest moves.

The point here is that if there's a series of moves that draw against Harvey's best analysis, those moves are valid by themselves, it doesn't matter from where they come from.

Then it'd depend on the outcome. Obviously if the random mover draws against Harvey, it's a stronger result, i.e. tells us more about the opening than if some CC player draws. But if it just loses to Harvey, it tells us almost nothing. And we'd surely all predict that it would lose and therefore tell us almost nothing.

[Ovyron]

Exactly, that's why I included the part "and got a draw" in my original message. Of course my entire argument depends on the random mover being able to draw (because if it isn't, no matter what moves it picks, my conclusion was wrong.)

[Ovyron]

1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nge7 8. O-O d4 9. Ne4 Ng6 10. a3 Bg4 11. Bd2 Qd7 12. Rc1 Be7 13. Nxc5 Bxc5 14. Rxc5 O-O 15. Re1 Rfe8 16. Qb3 Rad8 17. Qd3 b6 18. Rcc1 Bf5 19. e4

[d]3rr1k1/p2q1ppp/1pn3n1/5bP1/3pP3/P2Q1N2/1P1B1PBP/2R1R1K1 b - e3

[Harvey Williamson]

[pgn]1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nge7 8. O-O d4 9. Ne4 Ng6 10. a3 Bg4 11. Bd2 Qd7 12. Rc1 Be7 13. Nxc5 Bxc5 14. Rxc5 O-O 15. Re1 Rfe8 16. Qb3 Rad8 17. Qd3 b6 18. Rcc1 Bf5 19. e4 Bg4[/pgn]