No, chess is not perfect as it is. Here's why.

DeirdreSkye
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.

macer75
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
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

 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. 

macer75
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

 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.

SonOfThunder2
[COMMENT DELETED]
yianniww
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.
USArmyParatrooper

 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. 

Herpa-Derp

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.