A perfect game of chess is always a draw. Discuss. - Chess Forums - Page 10

peterwang712 · 2014-04-24T19:38:41-07:00

A perfect game of chess is always a draw. This is what I have discovered when matching Houdini against Houdini. If you match a very strong player against an equally strong player, the result will likely be a draw.

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#181

yet... I was going for loss to achieve thus but the King.

MARattigan

Mar 30, 2024

0

#182

mpaetz wrote:

Everyone agrees that unassailable proof (analysis of every possible move from the starting position to the ending tablebase) is impossible to achieve, so we are all nit-picking the amount of evidence each person feels is sufficient to satisfy them that the game is a draw.

No they don't.

Everyone agrees that individual analysis of every possible move from the starting position to the ending tablebase is impossible. Not everybody (me) agrees that it's necessary.

If a forced sequence is found for one side that results in mate before the endgame tablebase is reached or forced sequences are found for each side that result in stalemate or (under competition rules) expiry of the 50 move rule or a triple repetition before the endgame is reached then analysis of every possible move from the starting position to the ending tablebase is not necessary. If there is a relatively short forced mate or a relatively short pair of forced draws a forward search finding these may be possible in practicable time.

Neither can you discount the possibility that a mathematical proof not based on exhaustive search could come up with an answer. For example, you were probably taught early on a method for mating with K+R against K which was arrived at without any use of search at all.

Such a proof has not progressed very far yet, but give @tygxc 5 years and 7 maids with 7 mops and he could probably at least prove he's a teapot.

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#183

MARattigan wrote:

mpaetz wrote:

Everyone agrees that unassailable proof (analysis of every possible move from the starting position to the ending tablebase) is impossible to achieve, so we are all nit-picking the amount of evidence each person feels is sufficient to satisfy them that the game is a draw.

No they don't.

Everyone agrees that individual analysis of every possible move from the starting position to the ending tablebase is impossible. Not everybody (me) agrees that it's necessary.

If a forced sequence is found for one side that results in mate before the endgame tablebase is reached or forced sequences are found for each side that result in stalemate or (under competition rules) expiry of the 50 move rule or a triple repetition before the endgame is reached then analysis of every possible move from the starting position to the ending tablebase is not necessary.

Neither can you discount the possibility that a mathematical proof not based on exhaustive search could come up with an answer. For example, you were probably taught early on a method for mating with K+R against K which was arrived at without any use of exhaustive search at all.

Such a proof has not progressed very far yet, but give @tygxc 5 years and 7 maids with 7 mops and he could probably at least prove he's a teapot.

s allI wanted to say if you understand this language better, opponent failed to much ti chess mate after so many moves....

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#184

As you can use it for your self if in dire straits...

mpaetz

Mar 30, 2024

0

#185

But the tygxc method starts by ignoring the majority of possible opening moves and responses and pruning the search using the opinions of a small group of masters. Even if this achieves the result you seek it is no proof that other lines would not give different results.

It's still a matter of how little evidence an individual is willing to accept as "proof positive".

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#186

mpaetz wrote:

But the tygxc method starts by ignoring the majority of possible opening moves and responses and pruning the search using the opinions of a small group of masters. Even if this achieves the result you seek it is no proof that other lines would not give different results.

It's still a matter of how little evidence an individual is willing to accept as "proof positive".

I disagree, you see. You mentioned the word master, he should be able to mate you. Those other lines would be covered and made to trap, This is chess not pacman...

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#187

Many here don't even take effort to puzzle or take lessons.. Just like gta4 or 5 live ... well it's not .

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#188

Bulldozer in then complain about draw?

stancco

Mar 30, 2024

0

#189

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmattan

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#190

stancco wrote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmattan

Yet I'm not exactly there, but good point about a mirage. lol

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#191

I live in North Pole , I put my own flag. Nah!

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#192

Yes, there is internet there. Provided you have the tools... like a penta, look amazon they cheap af...

MARattigan

Mar 30, 2024

0

#193

mpaetz wrote:

But the tygxc method starts by ignoring the majority of possible opening moves and responses and pruning the search using the opinions of a small group of masters. Even if this achieves the result you seek it is no proof that other lines would not give different results.

It's still a matter of how little evidence an individual is willing to accept as "proof positive".

I think you may have misunderstood.

If you notice, I didn't suggest giving @tygxc any computers (I'm sure he would be happy to take the money instead). I wasn't referring to the proof he suggested on a previous thread. Rather to the proof he posted here in this thread, which purports to prove chess is a draw without any need for searching moves and therefore no need of computers.

Of course the proof needs a little working on as it stands, but I'm sure that given a suitable offer @tygxc would guarantee to fix it up in 5 years.

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#194

MARattigan wrote:

mpaetz wrote:

But the tygxc method starts by ignoring the majority of possible opening moves and responses and pruning the search using the opinions of a small group of masters. Even if this achieves the result you seek it is no proof that other lines would not give different results.

It's still a matter of how little evidence an individual is willing to accept as "proof positive".

I think you may have misunderstood.

If you notice, I didn't suggest giving @tygxc any computers (I'm sure he would be happy to take the money instead). I wasn't referring to the proof he suggested on a previous thread. Rather to the proof he posted here in this thread, which purports to prove chess is a draw without any need for searching moves and therefore no need of computers.

Of course the proof needs a little working on as it stands, but I'm sure that given a suitable offer @tygxc would guarantee to fix it up in 5 years.

5 year s lame bruh

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#195

fyi, by that time we will be in another world ethereal or physical.

MARattigan

Mar 30, 2024

0

#196

Optimissed wrote:

I think you make much of "versions of chess" in order to create ambiguity. Try to talk in general terms, which means ignoring 75 move rules. Logically, "versions of chess" doesn't relate to this argument since we're asking whether chess is a draw with best play. Not introducing an artificial rule and having to take that into account.

If the 75 move rule makes no difference then obviously ignore it. In the unlikely event that it makes a difference, it should be obvious even to a toothless gopher that it still has to be jettisoned in the interest of an honest assessment. You can add the caveat "not within the 75 move rule" later if it's wished. So you can forget the "versions of chess" disingenuation.

Well if we're not going to distinguish beween different sets of rules then we may as well use the rules for draughts. They say it's been proved to be a draw so thread solved. Chess is a draw. Hooray.

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#197

MARattigan wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think you make much of "versions of chess" in order to create ambiguity. Try to talk in general terms, which means ignoring 75 move rules. Logically, "versions of chess" doesn't relate to this argument since we're asking whether chess is a draw with best play. Not introducing an artificial rule and having to take that into account.

If the 75 move rule makes no difference then obviously ignore it. In the unlikely event that it makes a difference, it should be obvious even to a toothless gopher that it still has to be jettisoned in the interest of an honest assessment. You can add the caveat "not within the 75 move rule" later if it's wished. So you can forget the "versions of chess" disingenuation.

Well if we're not going to distinguish beween different sets of rules then we may as well use the rules for draughts. They say it's been proved to be a draw so thread solved. Chess is a draw. Hooray.

Unless you get upper hand, stop ignore my posts. Was all bout it...

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#198

I can also make text of 100 lines even a code in java or Python or just bash a hundred lines what wud surpsrise me btw but anywayz you keep return to same argument without counter intel or source or whatever etc so please...

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#199

Finite Game State Space

Deterministic Gameplay

Drawish Endgames

Computational Complexity

in summary, while the core mechanics of chess point towards it being a draw with perfect play, the practical difficulty of proving this conclusively remains a significant challenge. Focusing the discussion on these fundamental aspects, rather than introducing additional rules or variants, is a more productive approach.

err0r909

Mar 30, 2024

0

#200

look www