Definition - a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase
Can U really Win a Chess Game ?
Sort:
Say: I didn't loose that game - instead of I won.
lose*
bcoburn2 wrote:
It's been my experience that "wins" are the result of weak moves by your opponent. Sooo you don't win. Your opponent looses.
That's true of your rating and probably up to about 1800 rating (not exact of course). Trading off the mistakes of others is one strategy, however Grandmasters - high rated players create deep plans that they know will win them the game to some degree.
bcoburn2 wrote:
It's been my experience that "wins" are the result of weak moves by your opponent. Sooo you don't win. Your opponent looses.
The idea you're trying to get across, that chess is not a forced win from the starting position, is correct.
Taken literally I disagree though, because your opponent can play the worst move in every position and still not lose. The other player eventually has to force the win. Or maybe another way to say it, the winner makes the last move (at least when you play to checkmate).
Well I have to disagree chrisr2212 - If I win fool's mate, did I make a mistake?
snakesbelly wrote:
There is never a true winner in chess there are only lesser losers i.e. A guy that made less mistakes
Not necessarily. It's possible for one person to make several minor mistakes, but win, because his opponent made a couple of blunders.
When you win, your opponent does make mistakes, but you win by capitalizing on the opponent's mistakes. My opponent can blunder the game away, but if I just match that with more blunders, it doesn't work for either of us. Capitalizing on the blunders/mistakes is what gives you the win.
I agree that the most accurate way of stating things is that you can't truly win a game, you can only lose a game and give your opponent the win, or have your opponent lose the game and give you win -- assuming chess is drawn with perfect play, which most people who have thought about it believe.
On a related note, you can never improve your position, but your opponent can improve your position by playing bad moves. Whenever it is your turn to move, the evaluation of the position assumes that you make the best move, so making the best move merely maintains the current evaluation. Thus you can't improve your position, and you can't win unless your opponent has already lost and you find the moves that maintain the win (which is different than acquiring the win).
Dan Heisman has a nice article on the topic: Steinitz, Zermelo, and Elkies.
Agreed. Very nice explanation!
the real phrase is==blunder=
chrisr2212 wrote:
Timothy_P wrote:
Well I have to disagree chrisr2212 - If I win fool's mate, did I make a mistake?
yes, trying the fool's mate is a bad opening "in general" haha!
No, chrisr2212, there is nothing wrong with opening with e5 as black. The next move is checkmate. There are no mistakes in black's play.
chrisr2212 wrote:
you mean like 2 Qf3 or Qh5, early committal of the Queen, leaving it exposed to a decent player
ok grand, you're right, i'm wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool's_mate
Black plays 1.e5 and their second move is mate. They aren't committing the queen early, it's a mate.
Jun 22, 2012
0
#36
I think that if you expand this logic to any other game you'll get into the same debate. As an example, "You didn't win that tennis match, I failed to return all of your serves and volleys". "You didn't win the ball game, I failed to hit enough pitches or catch all of your hits".
Is this question more valid in chess than any other game?
I dont know...
I find I can sometimes win games by checkmating my opponent.
I try to win, but in the end i have a friend at the door or need Lunch or somethin......
By definition, a game with no mistakes by either player is a draw... So yes, you cannot "win" against perfect play.
Define definition.