on 10/03/12 at 19:08:11:
"For them to get outplayed requires them to blunder... Duh."
We could extend this to include every single game of chess.
There are numerous games where no gross blunders are necessary to cause a decisive result, but rather the entire opening variation is called into question as being strategically questionable.
It just doesn't apply to this variation. Quote:
"...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.
...People can lose from completely winning positions. It has nothing to do with the objective appraisal of the position.
It's a stupid
"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?
Prove. Me. Wrong.
Without game-altering mistakes? I've played quite a few. Just not as many as GMs have. It still doesn't matter concerning the appraisal of this position. Quote:
"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:)
Face-palm. 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.
This is the person I'm arguing with. Good God. Quote:
"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?
Come on. Follow the trail of bread crumbs. An entirely symmetrical position that follows good moves for both sides results in a... *fill in the blank*. Quote:
"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!
I am qualified to make that statement, unless an individual believes they are going to achieve a tangible advantage out of the opening from this entirely symmetrical position.
Again. Prove. Me. Wrong. Quote:
"Marin's statement flies in the face of current theory, and practice."
Wrong. Current practice shows GMs losing from both sides of the position.
You still don't get it, and frankly I'm wondering if you ever will.
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. Quote:
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.
Prove. Me. Wrong.
Pose me some problems. You have white to move after 8...dxc5.
Let's do this. Either theory will advance as a result of this disagreement, or I get to laugh at you for trodding paths I've already looked at. Let's go.
Get GM help if you've got it. Use a supercomputer to help your analysis. It won't save you.