Well, that is the Exchange Variation, which is one of the most popular lines against the Alekhine.
Alekhine Defence
Sort:
Jul 3, 2015
0
#43
Game_of_Pawneds and The Awesomest, Most Talented ilikecapablanca wrote:
I said that I am not going to repeat myself. You kinda just did. All the answers are already there. I have a single adjustment that I should make to one of my "arguments" but I didn't feel it was worth posting. This is it:
The reason why my arguments still stand if the game isn't theoretically drawn is because the same is still one sided, not somebody wins - White wins. Ookay, so how'd you come to that? Perhaps no human could force a win with White versus perfect play, but they sure could force many draws. We're kinda talking about the chess version of the unstoppable force versus the immovable object, and you're saying,
"Well, the immovable object is immovable, so the unstoppable force can just go home." You're forgetting THE UNSTOPPABLE CHESS PLAYER. ONE THAT IS MUCH BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE HAS EVER BEEN. NO ONE CAN FORCE A DRAW WITH HIM/HER. As I've tried to explain in the last 16,000 posts. Remember, this is theory. Therefore all my arguments still stand, EVEN if the HIGHLY HIGHLY improbably Huh? is true. No, mate, they don't.
Anyway, whilst we're on the topic of not answering questions... I have basically just got one argument. And I've refuted it. Multiple times! Top players could all score well enough versus perfect play to restrict it's theoretical elo to well below 3.3k. How has Carlsen lost so many games, then? That is my sole argument. It is comepletely water tight and not a single person of all of you idiots Ad Hominem Abusive. That is a logical fallacy. have even tried to dispute it. Yes, we have. Yet you somehow all think that you are right. Yes, we are.
I cannot believe just how stupid you all are. Okay. I am honestly struggling to come to terms with that. Cool. I'm not surprised that you are struggling to comprehend our genius.
Jul 3, 2015
0
#44
ipcress12 wrote:
Well, that is the Exchange Variation, which is one of the most popular lines against the Alekhine.
Huh. I'd never seen that!
Me neither!
Anyone with experience on the Exchange Variation??
lisa_zhang_tok wrote:
tictac12347 wrote:
Nice. Komodo Elo 3344, Stockfish 3312
I would feel so Silly-Willy now if I had said Elo 3300 was Impossible.
After reflecting on how that would feel, I came to realize that this conversation was never about Elo. It was about math, and you can't argue math, unless! its in relation to emotional inadequacy.
Some people want two inches to be six inches, and every ruler on earth will always be incorrect.
The mind is a funny thing.
I think it was Gandhi who said, "A donkey-clown is still a clown, but it looks like a donkey" he was so wise.
In Holland we also have a saying like that: Even if a monkey wears a golden ring, he will remain an ugly thing
bb_gum234 wrote:
A user extrapolated it out for us with a bit of calculus a number of years ago and guessed way above 3300 for the max rating... which makes sense considering top player's score vs engines...
If he did that and got the result that you just stated, then he did something horribly horribly wrong. I don't even need to work anything out to be 100% confident in that statement. It is so obviously completely wrong.
So, since you were stupid enough to imply a knowledge of GM scores vs top end computers, perhaps you could tell us how 2.5K Elo rated players have been scoring less than 1% on a regular basis in these match ups? No, of course you can't, because it is beyond ridiculous - and yet also required to be true to prove your point. Morons everywhere...
bb_gum234 wrote:
"My point" was only that you're wrong. So the threshold of proof is far easier than 1% vs engines. You said they could draw perfect play often enough to keep them lower than 3300.
This would be roughly 1 draw out of 12 games I think... difficult vs engines, and of course impossible against best play.
For anyone interested, here's Naka. 2 games with cpu assistance plus two games with pawn and move odds.
http://www.chess.com/news/stockfish-outlasts-nakamura-3634
But I forgot this was a troll discussion. I guess that's my fault.
No, that was not your only point. Also no, it isn't one draw in twelve. I have already provided the figures. No trolling, you're just outright wrong.
In the FIDE system, doesn't winning against anyone give you a minimum rating gain of 0.8 rating points? So it doesn't matter if the top engines or whatever could draw against perfect play. If you played perfectly and always beat a low rated player and never play other top players, you could theoretically reach an infinite rating.
Say I'm rated 3000. I may not beat other 3000s enough to get to 3300, but if I beat an 800 player 1000 times, my rating would go up to 3800. Don't see how a number as low as 3300 is impossible.
I was looking up the Four Pawn Attack and saw impressive numbers for White if he plays 5. exd6 instead of 5. f4.
Anyone with experience on this or the 4P?