@Akbar2thegreat said in #46:
> Time to re-read my actual question with respect to how this discussion started. Read from post #10. Other guy just shared a Wiki article but doesn't answer how that tempo is enough to win or how many tempi are needed to win and lot of cases with respect to tempo.
>
>
> All this is relative. You may (if possible) impress Einstein but not me!
>
>
> Stop right away there. If you never had any theory then how are you backing info? By providing facts? Mere representation of so-called facts & data won't answer different cases that arise from a question. I thought you were intelligent enough to provide reasonable info. Someone (for example John Nunn) won't provide those so called facts if I was having discussion with him rather he would provide detailed and in depth analysis to my query and would surely resolve it. Only those chess analysts/theorists who are well versed with discussion, can answer things sensibly. Though you are just another fellow human like me, but I didn't expected such a response.
>
>
> Clearly you are screaming as is evident from last line which is full of caps. This never occurs in serious discussion. I am beginning to think whether you were ever serious when I asked a simple query for a proper solution which has become haywire is this thread.
> Terms like 'expected' are usually seen in weak proofs. I am not looking for that rather a strong proof. If you are unsure what a strong proof is, the Wiki article says (note that this is regarding chess and with respect to First Move Advantage, solving of game is also crucial): en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
So in summary you don't like my data because you think it is "relative", because I am "just another fellow human", because "I am screaming" (this is due to your density in this discussion, by the way), and because I use the word "expected" (which is well-defined as in expected value, and this is the sense in which I use it. It is therefore incorrect to call it used in a „weak“ way, since it is a precise mathematical term used in almost every text that uses probability theory).
This falls into what I said of you discarding data for no actual reason, but instead just labeling it as invalid. But the data I point to is independent of what retoric I choose to present it.
I am not using a theory because I just provide data. I don't care about your follow-up questions, I am just defending the original claim that white wins more often, which you have still failed to acknowledge.
> In the end, how would you guarantee that White would always win in any random game? Though this question (due to its nature) can't be answered, I am not forcing it but don't force your so-called facts that White has 'First Move Advantage' (which isn't the case) as it wins better generally. And if you really call them facts, then let me tell you that every fact of any subject/aspect in universe has proper reason behind it.
I am not saying that white ALWAYS wins, that is obviously wrong. I am saying that in a random game (sampled according to the uniform measure on lichess games, or OTB games played by masters, or OTB games played by club players, or games played by Carlsen, etc.), the probability of white winning is higher than that of black winning. This is equivalent, by definition of the uniform measure, to saying that white wins more often. And this is obviously true just by looking at the data. Therefore it is a fact, and it is supported by the evidence of simply looking at the games which were played in the past and counting how often white wins/how often black wins.
> Time to re-read my actual question with respect to how this discussion started. Read from post #10. Other guy just shared a Wiki article but doesn't answer how that tempo is enough to win or how many tempi are needed to win and lot of cases with respect to tempo.
>
>
> All this is relative. You may (if possible) impress Einstein but not me!
>
>
> Stop right away there. If you never had any theory then how are you backing info? By providing facts? Mere representation of so-called facts & data won't answer different cases that arise from a question. I thought you were intelligent enough to provide reasonable info. Someone (for example John Nunn) won't provide those so called facts if I was having discussion with him rather he would provide detailed and in depth analysis to my query and would surely resolve it. Only those chess analysts/theorists who are well versed with discussion, can answer things sensibly. Though you are just another fellow human like me, but I didn't expected such a response.
>
>
> Clearly you are screaming as is evident from last line which is full of caps. This never occurs in serious discussion. I am beginning to think whether you were ever serious when I asked a simple query for a proper solution which has become haywire is this thread.
> Terms like 'expected' are usually seen in weak proofs. I am not looking for that rather a strong proof. If you are unsure what a strong proof is, the Wiki article says (note that this is regarding chess and with respect to First Move Advantage, solving of game is also crucial): en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game#Overview
So in summary you don't like my data because you think it is "relative", because I am "just another fellow human", because "I am screaming" (this is due to your density in this discussion, by the way), and because I use the word "expected" (which is well-defined as in expected value, and this is the sense in which I use it. It is therefore incorrect to call it used in a „weak“ way, since it is a precise mathematical term used in almost every text that uses probability theory).
This falls into what I said of you discarding data for no actual reason, but instead just labeling it as invalid. But the data I point to is independent of what retoric I choose to present it.
I am not using a theory because I just provide data. I don't care about your follow-up questions, I am just defending the original claim that white wins more often, which you have still failed to acknowledge.
> In the end, how would you guarantee that White would always win in any random game? Though this question (due to its nature) can't be answered, I am not forcing it but don't force your so-called facts that White has 'First Move Advantage' (which isn't the case) as it wins better generally. And if you really call them facts, then let me tell you that every fact of any subject/aspect in universe has proper reason behind it.
I am not saying that white ALWAYS wins, that is obviously wrong. I am saying that in a random game (sampled according to the uniform measure on lichess games, or OTB games played by masters, or OTB games played by club players, or games played by Carlsen, etc.), the probability of white winning is higher than that of black winning. This is equivalent, by definition of the uniform measure, to saying that white wins more often. And this is obviously true just by looking at the data. Therefore it is a fact, and it is supported by the evidence of simply looking at the games which were played in the past and counting how often white wins/how often black wins.
