How much does the first move matter?

Sort:
VLaurenT

If chess is theoretically a draw then the first move provides theoretically no advantage

Arctor
cigoL wrote:

"The burden of proof" - I'm sick of this sentence! It seems like everyone has read Dawkins, and his constant use (or rather misuse) of this term. The idea of "burden of proof" is in conflict with the scientific method, and makes no sense, since real science doesn't try to prove anything in the first place.


 Ok cigoL, so present us with the empirical evidence you've used to conclude that chess is a win for White. We're going to need something more convincing than your gut feeling.

We know from zugzwang positions that having the move can sometimes be a disadvantage. I've also presented an example (and there are many more) which shows that even what we percieve to be a large advantage (two rooks vs bishop) is sometimes not enough to win. Both these facts raise doubts over your claim that, with perfect play, White can convert his first move advantage.

ivandh
cigoL wrote:

"The burden of proof" - I'm sick of this sentence! It seems like everyone has read Dawkins, and his constant use (or rather misuse) of this term. The idea of "burden of proof" is in conflict with the scientific method, and makes no sense, since real science doesn't try to prove anything in the first place.


Replace "proof" with "evidence" if you have so much trouble with it then.

browni3141

It seems clear to me that chess is a draw from the starting position. Consider this:

1. As the playing strength of both sides increases, so does the frequency of draws.

2. If chess were a win for white, it would be logical to expect that as the playing strength of both sides increases, so does the frequency of white wins.

3. If chess were a win for black, it would be logical to expect that as the playing strength of both sides increases, so does the frequency of black wins.

cigoL
Arctor wrote:
cigoL wrote:

"The burden of proof" - I'm sick of this sentence! It seems like everyone has read Dawkins, and his constant use (or rather misuse) of this term. The idea of "burden of proof" is in conflict with the scientific method, and makes no sense, since real science doesn't try to prove anything in the first place.


 Ok cigoL, so present us with the empirical evidence you've used to conclude that chess is a win for White. We're going to need something more convincing than your gut feeling.

 

I cannot.

madhacker

Ok nevermind, we agree to disagree.

ivandh

I agree that you agree to disagree.

madhacker

I agree that you agree that we agree to disagree.

fireballz
phillidor5949 wrote:

If chess is theoretically a draw then the first move provides no advantage. If chess is a win for White then the first move advantage is infinite. For further reading, see:

http://oeco.blogspot.com/2010/12/epistemology-of-chess-advantage.html


 although there are equal pieces of opposite color present, the value of space is the same.

 

but....

 

when white move, the value of space is disturbed.

 

the space will determain the outcome of the game.

 

the game end, when the oponent no longer control space, in such a way, that it dont even control the space its at:)

 

freaktout to think of it in such way, ya?

fireballz

space also add to the value of material.

you might find that a pawn at a2 and one at a7, differ in value.

but only if you can understand:)

fireballz
cigoL wrote:

"The burden of proof" - I'm sick of this sentence! It seems like everyone has read Dawkins, and his constant use (or rather misuse) of this term. The idea of "burden of proof" is in conflict with the scientific method, and makes no sense, since real science doesn't try to prove anything in the first place.


 dawkins is not a chess player. the game of life is all about space, and the value of it.

you might find that knowledge is much more worth at the singularity, than what it is worth all scattered across the universe.

it might be that he ate something, and realised that he had it all figured out, but then again...

not everyone believe that consciousness is a result of a singularity that gather knowledge to repair itself.

even if it have to create life, and that gravitational pull is all irrelevant.

each matter, have a knowledge of where it fits into the singularity puzzle.

it is this knowledge we gather, thus all is possible to its own relevance.

AndyClifton