"...People can lose from completely winning positions. It has nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position."

If GMs can lose from both sides on a regular basis then we can clearly state that we have a position that can be played for a win by anyone(barring 'high level correspondence if it makes you feel better).

" Yeah, it's the engines. Not the hours of work put into it. No, just engines. I just flip the switch, check a database, and go to bed. I wake up knowing the theory. It's amazing"
You are a 2100 player over the board(based on 27 games). But with a computer you suddenly know more than GM Marin? Tell me what has changed.

"An entirely symmetrical position that follows good moves for both sides results in a... *fill in the blank*."
Uh, A sell played game of chess?

"A GM losing from X position does not have anything to do with the merits of X position. Correlation does not equal causation, etc. That said, practice leans towards draws, and away from decisive results."

I thought you didn't like statistics? Maybe only when you can use them for your arugment?

"Prove. Me. Wrong."
Definitions prove you wrong. GM practice proves you wrong. Logic proves you wrong. What else do you want. Just because you can draw the position with best play does not make the position a draw. It means it's equal.

"For them to get outplayed requires them to blunder... Duh."
We could extend this to include every single game of chess.

"...white has nothing against good play."
White has a position in which even GMs can lose. I think that means more then your willing to admit.


"The worst part is you're not even arguing against the fact black is completely equal to the point of drawing easily with good play"
I am arguing against the fact the you call this position a draw. There is the whole game yet to be played. Just because on move 9 the position is symmetrical does not mean that it's an easy draw. I think it's a balanced position. That means that without mistakes it will be a draw. When was the last time you played a game without mistakes?

"Engines aren't the reason the position will ultimately conclude in a draw."
Engines are the reason why you think you know more about the position than GMs:)

"Find me ONE game with a decisive result where black lost as a result of playing good moves."
It would hard to find a game from any balanced position that one side lost after making 'good' moves. If you lose, then somewhere along the line you made a bad move. Isn't this obvious?

"Any white player that chooses this continuation is hoping, praying, and wishing that black screws up, else it is going to be a prospectless draw."
You are not qualified to make that statement. That would require you to be able read other peoples minds!

"Marin's statement flies in the face of current theory, and practice."
Wrong. Current practice shows GMs losing from both sides of the position.

"I'm trying to figure out if you're serious, or just trolling at this point."
I have an interest in this position. That's why I was following the thread. You made a ludicrous statement and have spent the rest of this thread trying to defend it. Words have meaning. If you misuse them, be prepared for someone to call you on it. GMs apparently do not agree with your opinion about the position. Nor do I. Just because you can't find ways to pose problems from the position doesn't mean that no one can.

This is getting funny. You think it takes gross blunders to change the evaluation? Really? Have you looked at some high level games from that position? I see people getting outplayed.
The reason it wouldn't take much effort to draw in correspondence chess is because engines play really strong chess:)
You say "Elite GMs try to win objectively drawn endgames against each other as a routine matter". Yet, from the position we are discussing you say "Black equalizes, and when he does there's nothing left."? Maybe, What's left is a position that elite GMs can try to win against each other. 
I hope that you put more thought into your book than you did into this debate. I can only imagine how you assess opening positions?!
"It's a draw in correspondence play."
Like I said, Chess is a draw. What's the point?

Marin - The main drawback of this variation is that White can retain a tiny edge without any risk by means of 8.dxc5.

I agree that zoo hit the nail on the head. The position is equal. The position is not a draw! That's what I've been saying the whole time.
I also agree with Vass's comment that players will try to win from equal positions against weaker opposition. I will go one farther and say that strong GMs try to win from the position on move 9 against other strong GMs and even succeed sometimes:)
Comparing that position to drawn endgames misses the point. A drawn endgame can usually be held by knowing a particular technique. You have a whole game of chess ahead of you from that position.
My hypothetical draw offer is still out there BPaulsen. Are you accepting or declining?

Quote:

Fully agree with you! 

TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 02:05:12:

The strength and abilities of the players in OTB games don't have a thing in common with the objectivity that the position is dead equal. A better player will try to win even a dead drawn pawn ending against a weaker opposition. 

TNich wrote on 10/03/12 at 00:07:35:


Forgetting theory or playing poorly isn't unheard of. It is never, I repeat never, a matter concerning the objective merits of the position.

Try getting away with decisive results in high level correspondence play.

Hint: you won't.

If you can figure out why, then you'll know exactly why your entire argument is pointless.