Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:54 amWhen I wrote the conclusion is wrong I meant that you cannot get conclusion B from knowledge A(not that B has to be wrong).
The position may be a draw with perfect play but you cannot get this conclusion from the fact that harvey did not find a win and there may be positions that there is a win but harvey is not sure if it is a win or a draw.
Following wrong premises (if I did) to reach the right conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong. It's like I try to find what's 2+2 and I follow a set of directions that are unrelated, and end subtracting 986 from 990 and getting 4. You could say what I did was nonsensical and unrelated about 2+2, but if I arrive at 4, then the conclusion is right, even if I don't know if 900-986 equals 2+2.
Suppose Harvey had magic access to an oracle that tells him if a position is won for one side or a draw, and he sees Rcc1 is a draw and Rc2 was won for black, then my conclusion is right, and it doesn't matter how I arrive at it. But a magic oracle isn't needed, it'd suffice for Harvey to be able to win from any chess position that is won, and he's unable to win from this position against himself, so he'd much rather have me play the move that he knows loses, because he doesn't want me by chance to play the same drawing moves that he sees. Then my conclusion would also be right.
Therefore, if my conclusion is wrong you wouldn't be able to know if it's wrong, unless you have more information than me about it (like, you had a magic oracle and it says after Rcc1 black mates in something.) It's like person A murders person B, and I'm investigating the case. I follow red herrings and by mistake conclude that person A murdered person B. You take a look and say my conclusion is wrong because I made mistakes that nullify my logic and send person A free. But the fact was that he was the murdered, so the conclusion was right, even if with my knowledge I couldn't have proven it.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:54 amWhen I played correspondence chess and won games often I did not know what was the losing blunder of my opponent even when I could say some moves of the opponent were not good.
I can't play bullet chess, even in won positions I can't play fast enough to mate my opponents. I don't think my abilities to play bullet chess or your abilities to find the blunders you opponents played are relevant here.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:54 amI think about moves as better or worse and not as drawing or losing because I simply cannot solve chess even with the help of engines.
I can. The opening position is draw with perfect play. The position after Rc2 is a mate in something in favor of black. This has nothing to do with solving chess because you don't need the solution to be able to reach right conclusions about positions.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:54 amSuppose you play white and win and one move of black changed your estimate for expected result from 60% draw 40% win for white to
40% draw 60% win for white.
In this case it is not clear if this is the losing move or the losing move was earlier or maybe the losing move was later.
There are of course cases when you have 90% confidence that you win after a move but even in this case I prefer to be careful if it is not very close to 100% not to say that you win.
As with other people on Talkchess you need 100% proof of something to believe it. As I said in the other post, some things can be true without proof. And if I make a statement that is true, it's a right conclusion and it doesn't matter how I got there, and it doesn't need proof. If I make the statement that a position is a mate in X for one side and it is, it is a right conclusion even if nobody would be able to prove it.