Improving One’s Position Is…

 ...Impossible!

If your position appears to improve over time, then it’s because your opponent is making weaker moves than you. This way of thinking is crucial for correctly evaluating positions. The evaluation of a position assumes best play.

Your position is perfect before play begins. It only gets worse over time.

Kinda depressing.

Umm, no.

No to what? Depressing or improving one's position?

Both. The fact that white has the first move destroys this theory.

ivandh, In your example, black's position got worse because the black player deviated from best play, not because white made some great moves.

No this isn't well-reasoned. The opening position is not "perfect" it's merely perfectly symmetrical -- it's even. White plays to improve his position, Black does the same... if both players do their job, the position remains relationally even. But though still even the position does change.  Over time with perfect play most theorists think it becomes ever more clearly drawn  -- is that worse?

Chess is making the most of your opposite's mistakes and the least of your own. It's a lot like marriage... <--- now that's depressing

How does White having the first move destroy the theorem, based upon game play that one's position cannot be better after a move than it was before?

Example: White plays 1.e4. Does this move improve an already perfect position for White? No. How can one make a move that is better than perfect?

See my example above. If the starting position is perfect how can White have mate in one from an "inferior" position?

What on earth makes the opening position "perfect"?  Frankly that sounds silly-- You'll need to give us some criteria for this perfection you speak of.

Black and White are symmetrical and thus even.  It makes much more sense to call the opening position absolutely wretched for both sides. The only thing that saves it is that both sides are exactly the same wretched. Neither side has any piece activity, the king is uncastled and trapped in the center, neither side has any control of the center. It's just awful!  Fortunately the opponent is just as bad off as you are.

Of course both sides rush to improve their horrible position as best they can -- sounds like a chess game to me.

the starting position is far from perfect, it has weaknesses on squares, and offers no offensive chances.
The influence over the board is minimal.

I say every first move is an improvement of your position. from there there are many posibilities, and a player can hardly make the position worse than it was in the original state. Why do you think development is important?

1. No. White's position only gets better because Black has played weaker moves. The understanding of time and best play are both critical here. For any evaluation to be correct, one must assume that the best move will be played by one's opponent, whether or not he ever finds it. Anything less than the best move will result in a lower evaluation, and thus a deterioration of the position.

Regarding the starting position - whether it is perfect or perfectly symmetrical - is not germaine to the topic. The actions that humans take in the game of chess can be considered analogous to the second law of thermodynamics - entropy - decay over time. We humans cause our positions to decay over time because we are not perfect. The only reason why one can win is only due to his opponent making more mistakes. The 64 squares always win. We can't keep track of them perfectly all of the time. A computer does a far better job - and still makes mistakes!

2. Yes. I agree. We need to make the most of and especially punish our opponent's mistakes, i.e., if your opponent had the initiative but then blundered, then take back the initiative!

As I just posted above, the idea of the starting position being perfect or perfectly symmetrical is not relevant to the discussion of correctly evaluating any given position in chess once the game begins.

Humans are not perfect and thus worsen their position over time, however small.

But you aren't talking utter nonsense... the bit about the opening position being "perfect" is nonsense... but you're getting at something which occurs to many people. If the opening position is perfectly tied... why can't black just mirror white's moves exactly 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 etc. and by maintaining symmetry the game must be drawn.  But of course this is not well-reasoned, the opening position is not perfectly tied. White has the first move. White's first move advantage is small because the opening position is such a mess... but obviously there are many positions where being the player with the move is a winning advantage.  Preserving symmetry guarantees that White's first move advantage must be the ONLY factor in play -- it fairly gurantees that as the forces draw closer together the player with the move will possess a decisive advantage. It behooves Black to unbalance the position so that White's extra move is not the only factor.

the quality of the position is dependent of your opponent, and if it's better than his, it is due to him making more (relevant) mistakes. This doesn't in any way mean that making moves makes your position worse. think about it, you can easily maintain position by knight moves, after 3 moves who is winning?

Every move should improve your position, except if you are in zugzwang.
And why would they invent a term for zugzwang if the entire game would actually be a zugzwang?

It doesn't make any sense and i haven't heard a valid argument yet. 

Musikamole... It's bad form to premise your argument on the "perfection" of the opening position and then spin around and claim that this is not germane to the topic. Your original post promised an amusing excerise in disentangling some quasi-logical sophistry, but your latest posts aren't even good sophistry. I'm going back to solving CT Art 3.0 positions.

"Your position is perfect before play begins. It only gets worse over time."

I can see where this statement of mine is causing problems, as it muddles things a bit. My fault.

Take two

"Your position is equal to that of your opponent before play begins. It only gets worse over time".

And no, you can't improve your position by way of development. It will appear that way, but it's not what is actually happening. Your opponent also has the opportunity to develop. If your opponent fails to develop his pieces as well as you, then your development is better only because he made more mistakes than you in the opening. Perfect play must be assumed for correct evaluations, but no one plays a perfect game of chess.

The starting position is not perfect, therefore it is possible to improve on it, even without perfect play.

1. Agree!

2. Now we are getting somewhere. It is possible to make a perfect move in chess - well - if Rybka 4 and the vast majority of GM's agree. So, yes, you make a perfect move, your opponent replies with a perfect move - the evaluation reamins the same as it was before, i.e., slight advantage White, + 0.20.

Now, can your opponent (Black) follow your perfect move with one that is better than perfect, thus changing the evaluation to +0.10. No.

The only way for any computer evaluation to change is if someone makes a less than perfect move.

So, I do believe my original statement is true: Improving One's Position Is...Impossible.

By the way, this is not my bright idea, but that of a very well respected teacher and NM. I'm not making this stuff up.

"By the way, this is not my bright idea, but that of a very well respected teacher and NM."

We always know its true when some unnamed guy, although very smart and recognized we are told, is credited as its creator.