Black vs. White
Sort:
WHAT IF YOU HAD A CHESS SET MADE ENTIRELY OF ROOKS AND BISHOPS AND THERE WAS A THIRD SIDE GREEN AND YOU COULD HIT YOUR OPPONENTS WHEN THEY MADE BAD MOVES WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD WIN THEN HUH? GOD??
Nice debate... however, I disagree with the notion of a "perfect play" or "perfect computer". The beauty of chess is that the side with better strategic plans/sacrifices can always gain the advantage and may be force a win. Would we call that sacrifice a "imperfect play" then? I guess not!
vinodagnihotri wrote:
Nice debate... however, I disagree with the notion of a "perfect play" or "perfect computer". The beauty of chess is that the side with better strategic plans/sacrifices can always gain the advantage and may be force a win. Would we call that sacrifice a "imperfect play" then? I guess not!
What? If you make a sacrifice, it isn't necessarily a mistake, for instance, sacrificing a piece to mate. It's imperfect if there's a way to counter it regardless of how well the move is played through. And the side with the better strategic plan doesn't always gain the advantage...sometimes the person makes a mistake, or is simply outdone tactically. This is the reality of chess. Imagine a computer that could analyze infinite moves per seconed. Then we had it play for white and black. That's what we're talking about.
sparky_k24 wrote:What? If you make a sacrifice, it isn't necessarily a mistake, for instance, sacrificing a piece to mate. It's imperfect if there's a way to counter it regardless of how well the move is played through. And the side with the better strategic plan doesn't always gain the advantage...sometimes the person makes a mistake, or is simply outdone tactically. This is the reality of chess. Imagine a computer that could analyze infinite moves per seconed. Then we had it play for white and black. That's what we're talking about.
If a computer could analyze infinite moves per second, then it would evaluate the reasonable continuations from a standard opening as being worth 0.00
Once it played a standard opening, play would become ridiculous and meaningless because white would no longer press his advantage. The computer which could calculate to infinity would see every strong continuation ending in a draw.
Essentially we are all banging our heads against a wall when we play chess. The thing that makes checkmate possible is human ( and computer ) fallibility. When you play a game of chess, you must accept that the outcome should be a draw with ideal play. You say to your opponent "There is a road we must go down. Let's see if you can handle it."
Kingarther wrote:
Well, the argument can't be solved definitively until a supercomputer "solves" chess. And seeing as it took twenty years to "solve" checkers, we could be in for a long wait.
But on topic, I think white will win. I am a strong believer in the importance of defense, and I myself prefer playing black, but I think that if playing perfectly, white can turn his tempo advantage into a win. A perfect attack beats a perfect defense, in my opinion. It's kind of like the unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
If black has a perfect defence then there is no such thing as a perfect attack as white can not get pass the defence without taking heavy losses.which means white is sacrificing. not such a perfect attack.
A perfect defence isdoes not mean that it is infallible, it just means that it is the best defence POSSIBLE. Perhaps I did phrase it a tad awkwardly. I meant that the best possible attack (perfect, in other words) would, in my opinion, be able to overwhelm any defence it meets.
If you were playing a perfect game does that mean that the neither players would lose any pieces, because a perfect player would see the others plans to attack. Personaly I think that white has the better attack advantage by moving first and that black has the advantage in defence. However with white moving first it also is the first to open up its back pieces to attack. I agree that a perfect game would last forever as neither perfect player would be bling to any plan or strategy. There a too many variations in chess in the way the piedes can move. In cheekers there are fewer direction for each individual piece to move. I dont think that there is a solution to a perfect chess game.
It's a paradox. you play chess to win it. A perfect chess game= an automatic win.But since you can't have 2 wins in one game like you can in life, then both sides can't play a perfect game. And since truthfully neither side can play a perfect game, it could go either way. Simplifying it would make it a draw I guess. But place you bets on white.
Interesting thread we have here. I really don't know what to say about this, but I suppose White would have the perpetual advantage? Unless one day the computer tells us that White is in fact at zugzwang at move 1... which is kind of impossible!
invisible1 wrote: Interesting thread we have here. I really don't know what to say about this, but I suppose White would have the perpetual advantage? Unless one day the computer tells us that White is in fact at zugzwang at move 1... which is kind of impossible!
Why do you think that's impossible?
I believe that I read an article that mentioned that black has won more game in the current match between Rybka and Zappa. I can't find it now. Perhaps someone has more definitive information on this topic. If so, perhaps the advantage that humans have when playing white is largely psychological.
hooperxxx wrote: I believe that I read an article that mentioned that black has won more game in the current match between Rybka and Zappa. I can't find it now. Perhaps someone has more definitive information on this topic. If so, perhaps the advantage that humans have when playing white is largely psychological.
You would conclude this from one match? To me, it is often the psychological conception that gives black the edge in many amateur matches, because white is too aggressive because he thinks he should have the advantage. It may be possible, but I don't think you should conclude that by one match. Some people play better as black, but this is not the norm.
justice_avocado wrote: WHAT IF YOU HAD A CHESS SET MADE ENTIRELY OF ROOKS AND BISHOPS AND THERE WAS A THIRD SIDE GREEN AND YOU COULD HIT YOUR OPPONENTS WHEN THEY MADE BAD MOVES WHO DO YOU THINK WOULD WIN THEN HUH? GOD??
This quote wins, forget black or white.
In all fairness though, if the computer played perfect chess, white would most likely win, however black would probably have many potential draws that were only avoided by perfect play.
It is a paradox. Tell it to computer and it will explode.
It is absurd to believe that someone can play what is considered a perfect game without winning (if it is even possible to play a perfect game). So it is impossible for two opponents facing each other to play a perfect game. One must play a imperfect game.
well the game can end in a draw so I think it could bve possible to play a perfect game
Black is the best
Fantasy chess
well that game would end after 50 moves of no capture. (is it 50? i kinda forget the rules). so basically yeah you're decsribing a draw.
Either way... I doubt a "perfect" player wouldn't find a plan. A perfect player would understand the basic objective, to Win! The perfect play is for a win.
I think both white and black being played perfectly would draw.
I also think that if they played perfectly, no matter how many games they played they would probably play the same opening - same moves - reaching the same ending every single time... It would always have to be the same, because its the "perfect" moves... How boring perfection is.