Improving One’s Position Is…

1. Sorry for disappointing. I'll never come close to the sophistry of Plato.

2. Good idea. I need to do something else as well.

Thanks to all for your excellent contributions and arguments.

Take two

"Your position is equal to that of your opponent before play begins. False... White has the first move -- this is a small advantage in the opening position but  if Black attempts to prove "equality" by maintaining symmetry Black loses.

It only gets worse over time".

In the symmetrical strategy, over time White's position steadily improves toward victory, Black's degrades toward loss... obviously then, symmetrical play is not perfect play for Black.

This leads us to the interesting conclusion that Black's "perfect" play must unbalance the position... and this leads us to asymmetrical chess, and evaluations. Because Black must at some point pursue an asymmetrical strategy, our ability to "assume perfect play" becomes problematic. You can assume anything you like but chess has NOT been solved. We don't know if it's a win lose or draw for either side. Many suspect that it's a draw, but it emphatically has NOT been proved. So your assumption of the position getting worse with perfect play is just fantasy. We don't know if White's position should progress inevitably toward victory, draw, or defeat. And as we don't know -- we must do our best and evaluate and attempt to improve our position. 

What about when God plays God? Can God, who plays perfectly, improve his position's evaluation playing against herself? No. God has solved chess, he knows how it's supposed to come out. Improvement is nonsense from that perspective.

Claiming that you can't improve the opening position's evaluation (which is what you've been saying, not that you can't improve the position, but that you can't improve it's evaluation) is to claim that chess is solved, that the opening position has a correct evaluation. Sure, ok, in the eye of God it's solved. She knows it's either +1 -1 or 0.  But only God knows that evaluation. If we ever get that evaluation with certainty we'll be as done with chess as with tic tac toe.

How deterministicfatalist are you? Can you improve your life? Or is it preordained that you will do what you will do? From Gods perspective it's all worked out. From your perspective you attempt to improve your life.

In my opinion one lives and plays chess from subjectivity... the pure 100% realm of objective truth/determinism is far enough from our experience to merit little consideration I believe. 

*Edit* Executive summary: In practical terms, the evaluation of a chess position is subjective, horizoned, potentially flawed, and thus subject to change and improvement.

Theoretically every position including the opening position has an objective "correct" evaluation. Of course this theoretical evaluation (which can only be given by a being which has solved chess) cannot be improved, or changed... it's tautological... a correct evaluation means that it is the correct evaluation.

We do not know the correct evaluation of the opening position.

Didn't want to read 2 pages worth -- just wanted to say that you can improve your position without improving the evaluation of the position overall.  For example 1.e4 improves your position (space, center, mobility) but the position is still roughly equal.

Improving your position in general means shoring up weaknesses or mobilizing pieces, which you can do and be losing.  You can also do it while your opponent plays perfectly.  Sorry if it was said already.

Now improving the position (instead of improving your position) means making progress or otherwise improving the evaluation in your favor -- which would involve inaccuracies by your opponent.  This is how I understand it anyway, that improving your position and improving the position are slightly different.

@OP: I think that you're right, but you didn't state your opinion very clear. I'll try to make it more understandable by analysing a much simpler game, tic-tac-toe.

In the beginning, the position is perfectly tied. The evaluation is 0.00 . One cannot make a move that improves the evaluation in his favour, he can only lower it or keep it tied. Having the first move is not an advantage because both games are tied with perfect play.

In tic-tac-toe this is very simple because perfect play is very easy to find. In chess, perfect play is extremely hard to find, and when you find a very strong move ( which doesn't lower the evaluation, or lowers it very little ), you tend to think that you improved your position.

Note. For those who said that the initial position is not equal because not all symetrical positions are tied, that is obviously mistaken. The initial evaluation is 0 because with perfect play chess is ( likely ) tied. Evaluation assumes perfect, not symetrical play.

@ OP: the initial premise only holds true if chess is solved to be a draw with best play. in that case, there are only 3 possible position scores: -1, 0, and 1. best play (i.e. any play that continues to allow you a forced draw) will keep the position at 0 and sub-optimal play (i.e. there is a forced mate from that point onwards) will lower your score to -1.

OMG!!!!!!

SOMEBODY JUST WORKED OUT CHESS IS A ZERO SUM GAME! ...who would of thought it!

WE BETTER GO INFORM THE SWISS: THEY NEED TO GIVE THIS DUDE A NOBEL PRIZE

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum )

The problem with your "theory" is the start position is not the perfect position for winning.  Your position must advance in some way in order to win.  The final objective is checkmate, remember?

I agree that describing the opening position as a perfect position is a bad idea and the OP has admitted to that in this thread.

But, you have to read some of the stuff more carefully. The evaluation of the position assumes best play. The evaluation of the position includes the possibility of advancing to checkmate.

I did read it carefully, and I stand with what I said.  You said, "The evaluation of the position assumes best play. The evaluation of the position includes the possibility of advancing to checkmate."  The OP stated that the starting position is "perfect".  So, if black keeps his "perfect" position by not misplacing his pieces and white advances to checkmate...  Need I say more?

1. Black is not practicing best play by moving knights back and forth in an attempt to maintain this "perfect"  starting position. The element of time (tempo) is one very critical component for correctly evaluating any position in chess. I would argue that Black is down several tempi - and with this continuation of knights hopping back and forth - Black will most certainly lose to White. 

---

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

This one statement is still causing some to miss my main point, even after I changed the problematic word from perfect to equal. Most believe that White enjoys a very slight advantage by virtue of having the first move (initiative). Again, that's not relevant to this topic.

To win in chess, one must first obtain a winning position, and this can only be done through another's mistakes.

Now, playing moves that make it easier for your opponent to make mistakes is most practical.

Steinitz had a lot to say on the matter.

The Exeter Club page on his famous theories are worth a read:

http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/General/steinitz.html

To add to this,  NM Dan Heisman  has stated it  rather eloquently =>

 "In all games of full knowledge and choice (tic-tac-toe, chess, checkers, go, etc.), your position cannot be better after you make your move than it was before."

For the entire article, visit:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/steinitzrules.pdf

I believe the OP was interpreting what Heisman was saying. 

1. I do believe that the discussion of predestination goes well beyond the topic at hand. However, it was a good read. Thank you.

2. I'm sensing a degree of agnosticism with a healthy dose of skepticism in that statement. Take that leap of faith!  Believe that chess is a drawn game with best play and you just might enjoy a greater confidence with your positional evaluations. I do believe that in a practical sense (not an absolute sense) it's possible to know with great certitude the correct evaluation of any chess position.

Shivsky to the rescue!

Correct. I apparently failed miserably at sharing one of NM Dan Heisman's concepts from his book titled Elements of Positional Evaluation: How the Pieces Get Their Power - 4th edition.

The use of the word "perfect" gave me the most trouble.

In order to not take Dan's own words out of context, below is one full paragraph. For those that don't know Dan Heisman, he has written numerous articles that are real gems and free to read over at the Novice Nook.

http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/Novice_Nook_Links.htm

"I would be remiss if I did not let the reader know that there is a relevant rule in mathematical game theory which says that, "In all games of full knowledge and choice (tic-tac-toe, chess, checkers, go, etc.), your position cannot be better after you make your move than it was before."  The reason/proof is simple: before you move, your position is exactly as good as your best move can make it – make anything less than your best move and your position is not as good.  For example, it would not make any sense to say that "Anand is up a knight against Kasparov, but Kasparov is winning because Anand will blunder and put his queen en prise!" – Evaluation of positions always assume "with best play," so if one makes the best play, that evaluation must stay the same!"  -  NM Dan Heisman

Another way of stating this idea: You can not improve your own position by making a move, but your opponent can improve your position by making a move.

From my understanding, the theory that one side cannot improve one's position without an inaccuracy from the opponent rests on the theory of Dynamic Equilibrium, to quote from one of Pandolfini's books. I guess this is the same as the Theory of Steinitz.

This could be true, but I believe that by having the first move, White is able to secure some type of advantage. However, the advantage, against the strongest play from Black might not be enough to win a game. But I think White is definitely better off in Super GM games and in games between engines even though White does not always win.

I also don't understand the Heisman quote in relationship to a game of full knowledge such as Tic-Tac-Toe. While it is true that this game is dominated by Dynamic Equilibrium, the win percentage of X is so far above that of O that it stands to reason that X has the advantage based on the ability to move first. The game is about conquering territory in order to get three-in-a-row, so it also stands to reason that each move makes your position better (but that your opponent can successfully neutralize that advantage with a perfect countermove).

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

Is it really that it only gets worse over time, or that it only gets worse over time in comparison to your opponent's position?

The two positions may be comparitively equal. But I think, as JG27Pyth as successfully shown, when you look at the position of either White or Black and judge it as it is, it is an awful position that can be made better through central control (whether Classical or hypermodern), piece activity, and King safety, etc.

I dare to venture that after a move like 1. d4, your opening position as White is better than it was before. However, against a player like Anand, of course he is going to improve his position much quicker than you will be able to, and thus, your overall position will become worse after each move in relationship to his.

"I dare to venture that after a move like 1. d4, your opening position as White is better than it was before. However, against a player like Anand, of course he is going to improve his position much quicker than you will be able to, and thus, your overall position will become worse after each move in relationship to his."

Pericles said something to this effect- if you're not moving forward then you're falling behind. To that effect, runners are constantly improving their positions by getting closer to the finish line, but relative to others they may be worsening.

1. I followed the World Chess Championship and the commentators did make a big deal over who had White and how Black will be quite happy with a draw in game number such and such. The elite players do make a big deal about it as well, and they would know far more about the advantages White enjoys than a novice like myself. For the world title, both players went through rigourous preparations, so it could also be argued that Black was well prepared for White's opening moves, thus enjoying greater chances of equalizing in the opening, unlike, for example, you and I playing a match together with no knowledge of each others opening repertoire.

2. I would think that one's position only has meaning when compared to that of his opponent. With that said, humans make mistakes, so it makes sense to me that one's position gets worse over time, no matter what.

One exception: Gary Kasparov vs. Computers, i.e., Deep Blue. Did Kasparov ever play a perfect game? I do seem to recall he had to fool the computer once by making a weaker move or sacrifice a piece in order to beat the stupid machine.

its true you weaken squares moving stuff

Excellent point! That one simple line says a lot. I've read that the ideal pawn chain is the one before the game begins, with all pawns on the same rank. Sure, f7 and f2 are vulnerable squares, as only the king can protect those squares in the beginning, but those are the only ones at the start. Capture any other pawn on the 2nd/7th rank with a piece in the very beginning and you will lose the exchange. Even capturing a pawn at f7/f2 can result in being down the exchange.

As pawns and pieces are moved, weaknesses are created and targets are born. The one with the fewest weaknesses has the best chances of winning. 

It's just too bad that there are a number of different types of strengths and weaknesses in a game.  A move that loses control of squares gains control of other squares.  Giving up space may get you better minor pieces.  Giving up material may give you a bind.  Gaining the initiative may destroy your structure etc etc.

After reading the Heisman quote I see what you're saying now -- pretty cool.  I really like Heisman's stuff and this is no exception.