@MARattigan
the analysis board button on that 500 mover actually works!
But the diagram doesn't copy with the quote function.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 27, 2022
0
#342
Jan 27, 2022
0
#343
playerafar wrote:
Wow ! Move 508 Black hangs his rook !
Not that mysterious - black chooses to lose an exchange rather than a knight. 
Jan 27, 2022
0
#344
ok.
White's move 536 is nice because it gives black the option of losing a knight in several different ways - either it will be hanging (in one of two ways, one via a self-block), forkable or forked one move later after a check to get the queen to the forking square.
[Actually just noticed one more possibility 536. ... Na4. How does that do as badly?]
Jan 27, 2022
0
#345
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Wow ! Move 508 Black hangs his rook !
Not that mysterious - black chooses to lose an exchange rather than a knight.
Yes I know - I mentioned it in my 'edit'.
@Elroch
care to hazard a guess as to whether mate in 549 was 'announced' at the beginning? If this was stated at the beginning - I missed it.
Or if its in the 'linkage' I missed that too. Don't have time for it now.
Must log off now. As easy as falling off a log - but not painful 
Jan 27, 2022
0
#346
playerafar wrote:
@MARattigan
the analysis board button on that 500 mover actually works!
...
But I wouldn't take too much notice of what it says if I were you.
playerafar wrote:
DreamscapeHorizons wrote:
Heck, all the pieces would get a good workout, not just the pawns. Blitz on a board like that? It'd be hilarious.
Agreed.
For some reason - a kind of 'athletic chess' was never developed.
Maybe its because you just can't see the board properly - if you're down there with the pieces.
Forest for the trees again - but on that - literally. Phsically.
The funniest part of playing blitz on a board like that would be forgetting something crucial while ur getting ready to punch the clock like "oh shhh, was the bishop still on h43 or had it moved to f41?"
Then have to run back and look.
This is far from making sense lol what the hell
Jan 27, 2022
0
#349
So theoretically is there a "perfect game" where all moves played are the "best" moves or is there no such thing as a "best" move
Jan 27, 2022
0
#350
ScatteredWealth wrote:
So theoretically is there a "perfect game" where all moves played are the "best" moves or is there no such thing as a "best" move
Probably an extremely large number of perfect games under each of basic rules chess and competition rules chess, where "perfect play" is defined as in post #148 here https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=8 , but at any rate at least one each.
They are extremely unlikely to be the same.
Many ways of defining best move. It can depend on who you're up against.
Jan 27, 2022
0
#351
Elroch wrote:
ok.
White's move 536 is nice because it gives black the option of losing a knight in several different ways - either it will be hanging (in one of two ways, one via a self-block), forkable or forked one move later after a check to get the queen to the forking square.
[Actually just noticed one more possibility 536. ... Na4. How does that do as badly?]
One possibility
Jan 27, 2022
0
#352
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
You guys are just embarrassing yourselves. Not even the best mathematicians in the world know the answer to this and you guys keep arguing over this stupid topic for tens of thousands of posts over multiple threads. Just stop and everyone admit that they just don't know the answer to this, and that we will probably all be dead first before any conclusion can be reached.
Just stop. Walk away. Be bigger than this.
Don't hold your breath. Everything you say is true, and I think you know there is another thread that's been on "pause" for about three months that started in 2013 and has 9569 posts arguing over whether chess is a draw with perfect play. Every once in a while I mention that I believe that chess is most likely drawn with perfect play but we have not reached the point of perfection and it is impossible to rule out any possibility absent a proof that is not presently obtainable as is unlikely to be reached anytime soon. Every time I do this I get lambasted for "not understanding chess as well as I do", not paying attention to what has already been "proved" or "established" in the discussion, not being intelligent enough to understand superior minds, just being a troll, or engaging in unwarranted personal attacks by disagreeing with self-proclaimed experts.
The usual suspects will jump into any related topic to continue the diatribe, pulling in new posters and rehashing old points, beating a whole team of dead horses. You have often mentioned that you come to chess.com primarily to have some fun playing attacking speed chess. Some people come to these forums because they enjoy endless tendentious bloviating.
I guess my own fascination is similar to poking a beehive just to see how upset the residents become.
Jan 27, 2022
0
#353
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
ok.
White's move 536 is nice because it gives black the option of losing a knight in several different ways - either it will be hanging (in one of two ways, one via a self-block), forkable or forked one move later after a check to get the queen to the forking square.
[Actually just noticed one more possibility 536. ... Na4. How does that do as badly?]
One possibility
I think it is:
Jan 27, 2022
0
#354
Optimissed wrote:
It was the definitive thread and there were some good thinkers contributing. The conversation was taken, in that thread, just about as far as it could go. You arrived late and attempted to reopen old discussions that had beeen worn out there but this thread is for the die-hards. The ones who will go endlessly, round and round and round in circles.
I believe chess is a draw and I also believe I know it's a draw. That isn't going to be disproven any time very soon but it's up to the culprits to discuss it as they see fit. There are many worse, more pointless and more stupid threads.
Exactly what I said. There are die-hards "who will go endlessly, round and round and round in circles" and immediately attack anyone who dares put their own observations into their discussion.
Jan 27, 2022
0
#355
Elroch wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
ok.
White's move 536 is nice because it gives black the option of losing a knight in several different ways - either it will be hanging (in one of two ways, one via a self-block), forkable or forked one move later after a check to get the queen to the forking square.
[Actually just noticed one more possibility 536. ... Na4. How does that do as badly?]
One possibility
I think it is:
Well that works too, but it's one move longer. Your 539 is my 538 in the variation. (My mainline forces mate after 537...Kd8.)
Jan 27, 2022
0
#356
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Wow ! Move 508 Black hangs his rook !
Not that mysterious - black chooses to lose an exchange rather than a knight.
Not referring to that - referring to the moves before it ...
is black really forced to get into that situation?
and if it really forced over 508 moves is it possible that the computer is in error and there's a faster win?
I'd be inclined to think ... no. Not possible.
Or is it possible that black had a defense ... seems less unlikely.
Keep in mind it took high-powered computers to find the win of a Queen over two bishops. Lesser couldn't do it.
Jan 27, 2022
0
#357
ScatteredWealth wrote:
So theoretically is there a "perfect game" where all moves played are the "best" moves or is there no such thing as a "best" move
Its often suggested in chess discussions that GM games are often a draw because nobody made a mistake.
That might be disproved someday by computers.
And is it possible it might be proven that a white move 1 can force a win?
or that after particular white first moves - black could win by force?
Nobody knows apparently - however unlikely either seems to be.
It might never be known for sure.
Jan 27, 2022
0
#358
playerafar wrote:
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Wow ! Move 508 Black hangs his rook !
Not that mysterious - black chooses to lose an exchange rather than a knight.
Not referring to that - referring to the moves before it ...
is black really forced to get into that situation?
and if it really forced over 508 moves is it possible that the computer is in error and there's a faster win?
I'd be inclined to think ... no. Not possible.
Or is it possible that black had a defense ... seems less unlikely.
Keep in mind it took high-powered computers to find the win of a Queen over two bishops. Lesser couldn't do it.
Well I responded in a message before I noticed you'd posted it, but I'll copy it here.
Ah.
But it's no use asking me (or anybody/thing else that hasn't got tablebase access). I just posted the tablebase moves. The endgame itself is completely beyond me.
But because it's the tablebase you can be sure that any way of wriggling out of the exchange will just result in a loss some other way in the same number of moves or less.
Note that the tablebases are perfect; it's not like asking Stockfish (who wouldn't get close).
Bruuuuh
Jan 27, 2022
0
#360
Urban Dictionary: Bruh
Bruh The reaction to every single situation possible. The most versatile word in existence. Can be used to show happiness, sadness, distress, anger, fear, sleepiness, disgust, approval, disapproval, confusion.. and many more!
Hi @MArattigan
...
Does the forum topic connect up to everyday chess ?
I would say yes.
Personally I would say no, because I think everyday chess, at any level from beginner to grandmaster or engine, is probably so far from perfect chess as to be unrecognisable.
When I look at this from the position shown, all I can say is, "it's chess Jim but not as we know it".
(Quickest possible mate from the position shown against best defense. Taken from the Lomonosov site.)
Certainly an engine without a tablebase isn't going to touch it. They generally crap out before the mate depth gets to 50 in 5 man positions.
It Haworth's law holds up to 32 men that could be around 3,000,000,000,000 moves instead of 549.
(I should say Haworth's law, as it's creator points out, is a conjecture rather than a law, and he doesn't use it to predict more than three extra men beyond those already solved. But I still think it's the best guess.)