Were you working on this thread's content like an author plan for a book?
No, chess is not perfect as it is. Here's why.
Sort:
There is a chess variant that black and white move simultaneously. Their move is written down in a sheet and being opened up whenever both player have written it. Thus there is guessing factor in it.
The rules and clock mechanism should be changed. I have proposed this variant.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/simultaneous-moves-chess
DeirdreSkye wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Weird , the world champion has no idea about the statistics.
Now you're taking a firm position on a debate that is nowhere near decided. Until chess is solved, there is no way to know whether with perfect play it is a draw, a win for white or a win for black.
By the way, it's ludicrous to suggest based on one quote that the world champion has no idea about the first-move advantage in chess. Look at his games, and you'll see he does better with white.
I don't care if a statement from the world champion regarding a top level tournament doesn't matter to you. You are obviously too good to take his words seriously. I am not. The fact is , everyone is talking about white's first move but it never seems to play a meaningful role in determining the winner of a tournament. The winner of a tournament is always the best player regardless of how many white or black he has to play. So where does white's first move matters? Obviously it doesn't matter for the world champion and it doesn't matter for the winners of the tournaments.
Chess is facts. Facts in chess is moves and lines.
Prove an advantage in one of the major openings. That is the only real proof that white's first move matters.
Or, alternatively, since you claimed out of the blue that chess with perfect play is a draw, why don't you prove that? Neither that nor white's first move advantage has been proven conclusively, because chess has not been solved, but currently there is much more evidence for the latter than for the former.
And no, I'm not going to take the world champion's words at face value, just as I'm going to take the words of a football coach being heckled by reporters asking random questions before a game at face value. Neither has a reason to offer a full answer, and Carlsen's clearly was not. Any database of his games shows that he gets better results with white than with black.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Weird , the world champion has no idea about the statistics.
Now you're taking a firm position on a debate that is nowhere near decided. Until chess is solved, there is no way to know whether with perfect play it is a draw, a win for white or a win for black.
By the way, it's ludicrous to suggest based on one quote that the world champion has no idea about the first-move advantage in chess. Look at his games, and you'll see he does better with white.
I don't care if a statement from the world champion regarding a top level tournament doesn't matter to you. You are obviously too good to take his words seriously. I am not. The fact is , everyone is talking about white's first move but it never seems to play a meaningful role in determining the winner of a tournament. The winner of a tournament is always the best player regardless of how many white or black he has to play. So where does white's first move matters? Obviously it doesn't matter for the world champion and it doesn't matter for the winners of the tournaments.
Chess is facts. Facts in chess is moves and lines.
Prove an advantage in one of the major openings. That is the only real proof that white's first move matters.
Or, alternatively, since you claimed out of the blue that chess with perfect play is a draw, why don't you prove that?
I don't need to prove that. I have attended countless lectures and I have heard a lot of good players(GMs and IMs) claiming that :
"For one side to win , the other side must make a mistake"
The same is written in many books(obviously you have never study any).
For example in the book "Rich as a king" by Suzan Polgar and Douglas Goldstein Chapter 1, page 4 :
"Chess games will always end up being a draw unless one side makes a mistake."
Do you have a better player than Polgar that claims the opposite?
Till now you haven't provide even a single proof for your claims.Let's hope that will change now and it won't be continents' fault again.
Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? In this case it's more the pot calling something less black than itself black, because if anyone has not proven their claims it's you - unless one counts your repeated claims to authority in every single post as proof, that is, and I'm sorry, but I cannot do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
DeirdreSkye wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
macer75 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Weird , the world champion has no idea about the statistics.
Now you're taking a firm position on a debate that is nowhere near decided. Until chess is solved, there is no way to know whether with perfect play it is a draw, a win for white or a win for black.
By the way, it's ludicrous to suggest based on one quote that the world champion has no idea about the first-move advantage in chess. Look at his games, and you'll see he does better with white.
I don't care if a statement from the world champion regarding a top level tournament doesn't matter to you. You are obviously too good to take his words seriously. I am not. The fact is , everyone is talking about white's first move but it never seems to play a meaningful role in determining the winner of a tournament. The winner of a tournament is always the best player regardless of how many white or black he has to play. So where does white's first move matters? Obviously it doesn't matter for the world champion and it doesn't matter for the winners of the tournaments.
Chess is facts. Facts in chess is moves and lines.
Prove an advantage in one of the major openings. That is the only real proof that white's first move matters.
Or, alternatively, since you claimed out of the blue that chess with perfect play is a draw, why don't you prove that?
I don't need to prove that. I have attended countless lectures and I have heard a lot of good players(GMs and IMs) claiming that :
"For one side to win , the other side must make a mistake"
The same is written in many books(obviously you have never study any).
For example in the book "Rich as a king" by Suzan Polgar and Douglas Goldstein Chapter 1, page 4 :
"Chess games will always end up being a draw unless one side makes a mistake."
Do you have a better player than Polgar that claims the opposite?
Till now you haven't provide even a single proof for your claims.Let's hope that will change now and it won't be continents' fault again.
Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? In this case it's more the pot calling something less black than itself black, because if anyone has not proven their claims it's you - unless one counts your repeated claims to authority in every single post as proof, that is, and I'm sorry, but I cannot do that.
Well, if you try to understand chess from Wikipedia then there is nothing I can do except laugh(and it was a good laugh , thank you).
I heard Cosmopolitan and Reader's Digest also have some good articles about chess. Have you tried them?
As for me , please allow me the delusion to believe that Polgar understands chess much more than the guy that wrote the article in wikipedia and of course much more than you.
... and you're doing it again.
I'll leave it at this: it's impossible to prove conclusively either that white has an advantage or that chess with perfect play is a draw until chess is solved. For now, the fact is that top players - including Polgar - all have better results with white than with black.
[COMMENT DELETED]
In my opinion this whole argument is invalid.u said chess isn’t perfect.I say it can’t be perfect.why?because humans(and of course the human mind) isn’t perfect.so any invention of it won’t be perfect.the reason the rules don’t change too often is because as in all things evolution takes time.maybe it will take more than our lifetimes to happen.
Two quick and easy points to the somewhat lengthy OP. First, there is no standard by which to gauge “perfect“ for anything opinion based. Second, in my opinion chess will not continue to evolve. The game as it stands has been institutionalized on a global scale. Never is a long time, but for the foreseeable future I see rule changes to the game itself as unlikely.
What requisites are there for a game to be perfect, and by whom's standards? It seems the only objective standard would be for each player to have equal opportunity to win, granting that all players have the same level of skill. But even this may be offset with handicaps if all players find it prudent. The quality of a rule, policy, or law is almost always subjective.
Deirdre, chess has an opening evaluation in favor of white; I believe the evaluation is .22 in white's favor. The fact that white moves first is inseparable from the evaluation; the player to move is always considered or else checkmate situations could be equal. This is a fact of chess; you would need to do something more than disagree with it to convince anyone that white is not favored.
The reason .22 is still considered interesting or fair is that a difference of that much is not enough to prevent a draw. You should be able to draw someone who is only that far ahead of you. However, the fact remains that the starting position of chess is a disadvantage to black. If you switched the positions of the knights and bishops, the evaluation would be about .01 in white's favor, so closer to your theory that moving first and moving second both come with their own advantages and disadvantages but are equal, but your theory would still fall a bit short. There are no arrangements of pieces on the chessboard (in the two row mirror format) that are equal; all favor the first player to move.
You present an insignificant number that might be product of human flawed parameters as in indisputable fact. This 0.22 means absolutely nothing from the prsactical point of view and it might not even be correct.
Fritz 12 gives 1.e4 as best but 0.05 after 1...e5. So all the so called first move advantage evaporates after Black's answer and if you play a few normal moves , it becomes less than 0.05. Find a way to prove an advantage in Ruy Lopez or Italian.If you can't then clearly means that the initial 0.22 is a nonsense.From the practical point of view the chances are equal.
All the engine evaluations in the first 2-3 moves are meaningless and highly irrelevant. There is not even one that seriously studied chess a tiny bit at some point in his life that won't tell you the same.
Only amateurs take them seriously.
There is nothing interesting in an engine evaluation in the first move or the second move. From the good players none cares.
Really? By all appearances it seems to be the opposite. First-move advantage matters a great deal to higher-level players - just look at the percentage of white wins vs. black wins in databases - but as the players' ratings go down it becomes much less significant.
Chess is concrete lines not statistics.Can you prove an advantage in one of the main openings(try Ruy Lopez)? If you can't then clearly means you have no idea what these numbers mean but please prove me wrong.
The problem with equality is that often White is the one with the easy side of the equality.
A good example is the exchange variation of Queen's gambit declined. The database numbers are hugely in white's favor but the line promises no objective advantage. Black has to be more precise and a slight slip can kill him.
The same happens in a lot of positions. In French defense, Black has to surrender space and deal with dangerous white attacks , in Najdorf he has to accept a backward pawn and a weakness on d5 , in Dragon he has to allow a dangerous attack on his king. Overall, Black has to risk more and these risks demand more accuracy and more precision.It is well known that in many lines there is a very narrow path to equality and Black is almost always on the difficult side of the equal position.
But this is not an imperfection of chess because it was mentioned as such. It is an imperfection of humans(with perfect play it is a draw) and it actually makes the game more interesting. If there was a dry equality since move one , half of the magic of the game would be lost. All the starting positions would be about the same.
By the way, when Carslen was asked in London Chess Classic if it matters that he has more games with white pieces he said:
" No it's the same, I have to play well to win with either color"
Weird , the world champion has no idea about the statistics.
Now you're taking a firm position on a debate that is nowhere near decided. Until chess is solved, there is no way to know whether with perfect play it is a draw, a win for white or a win for black.
By the way, it's ludicrous to suggest based on one quote that the world champion has no idea about the first-move advantage in chess. Look at his games, and you'll see he does better with white.