#### The Starting Point

*The analysis of a chess game is not done as long as no serious one half move error analysis did take place.*

If the ground position is drawn: Neither White nor Black can force a win during a game of chess (Anti-Münchhausen-Rule).

For those who want to have more details: In chess game commenting literature an often used rule of propositional logic is as follows:

*The conclusion from a statement A on a statement B is false, if and only if A is true and B is false.*

Accordingly, if A is false (or true) and B is true, the implication from A to B is true. This is (sometimes) used for telling nice stories, which are not really helpful to improve our understanding of chess.

One point is, that we do not know the truth or logical value of the premise A. So if we use A, we have to avoid the 8 theses contradicting the hypotheses on the home page

A second point is illustrated by the following example: Let B the statement „White wins“. It is „proofed“ by giving some sequences of moves ending with mate. This „proof“ can be correct, if the analysis starts from a won position, i.e. an error must have occurred before. If, on the other hand, there is no error before, there must be an error in the „proof”. Without specifying these points, nothing at all is proofed.

There is also a psychological problem: We have become accustomed to accept the way how games are commented by masters of chess. We believe in what they preach. But chess is not religion.