1e4c6_O-1 wrote:
speaking of accuracy look at this game
This hurts my soul
How does chess.com calculate accuracy?
Sort:
Apr 9, 2024
0
#23
Optimissed wrote:
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
DonatoMaster10 wrote:
1e4c6_O-1 escribió:
speaking of accuracy look at this game
A perfect game of chess always ends in a draw.
It is also my current belief that a "perfect" chess game would also end in a draw (due to not being able to force a win, even with slight advantage, due to the Principle of Two Weaknesses). However, the "perfect" chess game resulting in a draw has not been proven; you shouldn't declare "always ends in a draw" as if this is a proven fact. As incredible as current chess computers are, they are far from solving chess.
We know that a game of chess where both sides play the best moves results in a draw. Knowing it is not the same as being able to prove it deductively, which is and always will be completely impossible. It's an inferential proof. That's the same kind of proof that leads us to understand gravity.
Then you don't KNOW it.
I also believe chess is probably a draw with best play, but this isn't proof. It is our educated guess. Perhaps educated guesses are still correct more often than not, yet they are still guesses.
Maybe one day a computer or mathematician will creatively invent some amazing way to illustrate chess is a draw with best play, but I don't see this happening anytime soon (if ever).
Apr 9, 2024
0
#24
Optimissed wrote:
If a deuctive proof cannot exist, then we go to the next best thing.
Yes, but then we don't claim "know." Informally, I understand what you mean and I agree. I just get very picky with technicalities and definitions because I am using "know" as as absolute and a synonym for "certainty."
If we use "know" as "more likely correct than not", then okay fine. I might even say "beyond a reasonable doubt" could count as "know" if I can generous with the definition, but even still I believe there is reasonable doubt about chess being a draw with best play. I suspect it is a draw, but I also wouldn't be shocked if white has a forced win with best play.
We don't really need to keep this overused topic going though. I'm sure you and I have both encountered this in many forum threads over the years.
To our great friend Optimissed you are right! But I see a perfect game is not a game where computers play in each move leads to a draw. That's not perfect that's boring. Magnus Carlson and whoever he plays and they come into a draw that's perfect. Perfect because there's excitement this interest there's hope desire to see a winner. The interest to see someone play great moves. That is what chess is and has been about. I know that there are many who would like to see " the perfect game " an (mathematical or scientific draw) but after watching a few of them I'm sure they would rather see a game between Magnus Carlson and someone that's a perfect game.
I am noticing that less failures at the end of a game results in a higher accuracy! Unknown last 10 moves 30% , but that seems to be the problem stems. I have played games with 1 inaccuracy and 87% accuracy. I have played a game with 3 inaccuracy and receive 92%. Go figure? The difference was where was the inaccuracies, beginning of the game or towards the end.