Improving One’s Position Is…

Regarding the OP, I really find it amusing when a "D" player makes grand pronouncements about the deepest nature of things he really doesn't understand.  His opening salvo about the "perfect" position is just a lemon.  I'd be interested to hear a grandmaster, or somesuch extemporize on such a topic, but right now, here, the best we can hope for is a flame war...

It's not an excellent point because it only tells half the story. It is true that when you move a piece, certain squares are weakened, but also, certain squares are strengthened!

Pawns are the exception because since they cannot move backward, their movements will always create lasting weaknesses, but the moves come with certain strengths that often outweigh such weaknesses. Like in the opening, you don't really need the d-pawn to guard c3 and e3 squares because your other pieces are doing a great job of that, so an advance makes sense to weaken these squares, ever so slightly, but gain a foothold on the very important e5 and c5 squares, both of which are necessary for Black to occupy eventually in the game. Also, you have the advantage of opening lines for your pieces to develop. Overall, the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses, thus it is safe to say that your position got better with this move, not worse.

Also in regards to the theory that the beginning pawn chain is ideal, well it may be good for the pawns, but it is far, far from ideal for the pieces. All the pieces are operating at below 50% effectiveness in terms of influence over the board. The Queen, Rooks, and Bishops are suffering badly. And the King wide open for attacks.

If the opening position was perfect, couldn't you just endlessly pass the turn in hopes that your opponent will eventually keep making moves that always weaken his position, and thus inevitably lose him the game? Of course this wouldn't work because you would get Scholar's Mated very shortly. Since White chooses to pass each turn and let Black make weakening moves, does he win? No. Because is it that Black would be playing moves, 1. e5 2. Qh4 3. Bc5 4. Qxf7#, that weaken his position, or moves that strengthen his position, but maybe not 100% optimally?

Like in a game with me vs. Anand, the correct move for me to make is still 1. d4 rather than pass because my position improves overall. But because Anand is the champ, he will continue to make moves that improve his position much faster than I am able to, and thus he will win the game based on this ability (that he can make moves that at least improve his position slightly 100% of the time, whereas I will only have the ability to play moves that make my position better maybe only 50% of the time, and sometimes I will play moves that make my position worse). It's not because I'm weakening my position after every single move, though there will be moves that I will blunder and weaken my position. But if you charted my moves and their impact on the game, I would probably be able to make 3-6 moves in the opening that improve my starting position, only then to start falling behind. I don't lose simply because I start sabotaging my perfect position from Turn 1!!

Back to Tic-Tac-Toe for a moment: even though the game is dynamically equal, if we had to give computer scores for the position like in chess, we could safely give X something like a 0.5 or half pawn advantage after each move, with O being able to bring the score back to something like 0.08 after each of his moves. And then X would make another move that would increase his lead again to something like 0.45. Even though the game is drawn, X's position on the grid is certainly better, even against a 100% perfect defense by O. After each move X is strengthening his position and pushing ahead in the race so that even though O is doing a good job of keeping pace, X is the one with the better and stronger position after each move.

I think the same is true for chess in that your position can be better, but it might not always be enough for a win. And that because it happens more often than not with White, I would say that it is fairly safe to conclude that he has the advantage. A better position might not always be a winning position, but it can still, nevertheless, be better.

Like in a super match between Rybka 17 vs Rybka 17, White may be indeed able to maintain an opening edge and keep it throughout the match, even though the advantage might not be enough to win the game, it may be very difficult or impossible for Black to bring the score back to 0.

White is in zugzwang from the beginning of the game, the only reason white does so well is because black blunders so often.

I would agree that starting position is perfect, because there are no weaknesses.

When you play lets say 1.e4 your position worsens (d4 and f4 becomes weaker) but if your opponent 'passes' his position worsens even more since he hadn't adjusted his position to your weakening. So he has to weaken his position aswell. So it's all about weakening yourself less, than your opponent is himself.

Hmmm... But I don't agree white is in zugwang from the begginning of the game since there are four moves that can equal the position (Na3,Nc3,Nf3,Nh3). After one of those black also has to play with Knight otherwise he weakens himself and you have a forced win. Easy :)

Anyway nice topic.

Excellent contributions to this thread. Thank you.

I do hope that some here can move beyond the starting position in chess and begin defending your thoughts on whether or not a chess player can truly improve his position. I will hold firm to the idea that one can not improve his position. One's position only looks better because his opponent made a mistake.

"Regarding the OP, I really find it amusing when a "D" player makes grand pronouncements about the deepest nature of things he really doesn't understand.  His opening salvo about the "perfect" position is just a lemon.  I'd be interested to hear a grandmaster, or somesuch extemporize on such a topic, but right now, here, the best we can hope for is a flame war..."   - polydiatonic

@ polydiatonic - Well, well. This "D" player got your attention.  Maybe you failed in reading further, thus missing the main point of this topic. I did make a clarification of the word "perfect". But, perhaps you missed it...so flame away. You insist on a GM to comment on this site? Good luck!

Here's just a little taste of what a respected teacher and National Master has to say:

"Evaluation of positions always assume "with best play," so if one makes the best play, that evaluation must stay the same! I have had people argue that this mathematical theorem is untrue(!). They reason that White's position after 1. e4 is "better" than it was before 1. e4 because of the extra center control and mobility for the queen and bishop. But this argument does not hold water, because in the initial position White can always play 1. e4 if he thinks that is the best move, so his position is at least as good as 1. e4 would make it. That extra mobility one gets from playing e4 does not make White's position "better"; they do not realize that there is a counterbalancing "cost": it costs the tempo that was used to play e4 – it is no longer White's move!" - NM Dan Heisman

With best play vs. best play, even if the game ends in a draw, one position is probably better than the other. I would imagine that one side would be winning by some fraction of a pawn, thus, that side was able to better his or her overall position throughout the course of the game, refuting the idea that no progess can be made without an inaccuracy or blunder.

I guess my real problem here is that, first the discussion is completely elementary and has no actual bearing on a practical game of chess; and second, that the entire discussion assumes that good chess players don't understand the dynamic nature of the game.  It's really just sort of silly.  Outta here...have fun.

An interesting way of looking at this topic. Thank you.

Why would best play vs. best play result in anything else but equality (=) ?  I do agree that the evaluation by a computer could read +0.05 for White after the players agree to a draw, but I don't believe that this evaluation can arise from the best play from both players. Black made a slight inaccuracy during the course of the game, but not a sufficient one to warrant the continuation of play - thus a draw is agreed to. A game can be hopelessly drawn even though one side enjoys a very slight fraction of a pawn advantage.

NM Dan Hesiman addresses a drawn game in Elements of Positional Evaluation. 

 "This theorem that your position cannot get better as a result of your move is of fundamental importance to chess theory. It means that if the game of chess is (for example) a draw with best play, then a player can lose without making a mistake. Moreover, if chess is a draw, then a player cannot "win" a game just by making good moves-the opponent has to lose it!"   - NM Dan Heisman

I think in practical play, yes, an opponent has to lose the game. But in theory, I highly doubt that Black could manage to keep the game completely even throughout. I mean, computers are very good nowadays, getting closer and closer to a blunder-free game. I think most games are dominated by White, leading by a fraction of a pawn, and dictating the course of action, even though he may never be able to convert that advantage into a win.

In theory, I doubt Black, even in a best play vs. best play scenario, could find a defense to 1. d4 in which he could manage to keep the score at 0 throughout the game, and manage to draw at the end. I don't think such a defense currently exists. Of course, one can argue that this best play vs. best play defense hasn't been discovered yet. But if it has not been discovered, then this really hurts the theory that best play vs. best play results in a draw because neither side can improve his or her position. It points to the likely fact that even when facing the ultimate defense, White can improve his or her position with each move, without a mistake from the opponent, even if the position cannot be converted into a win.

A rating of 2391! Thanks for dropping in and helping this novice out.

That is precisely all I was trying to do. As a novice chess player, I was dumbfounded when I read the following words by Dan Hesiman (Novice Nook) in his book titled Elememts of Positional Evaluation:

"This theorem, based upon game theory, states that 'One's position cannot be better after a move than it was before!' While at first seemingly illogical, this theorem is one of the most important things a chess analyst should know, and a simple proof is as follows: The evaluation of a position assumes best play (The reductio ad absurdum statement - ' White stands worse because, although White has a mate in one, I think White will put the queen en prise' - shows why this makes sense). Therefore, to evaluate a position correctly before moving, assume the best play will be played (whether or not anyone finds it). It follows that anything less than the best move will result in a lower evaluation, and thus a deterioration of the position."

To repeat a corollary from the Steinitz theory links posted earlier in the thread:

As a chess player, it is to your benefit to continuously pose difficult problems for your opponent to solve.  Sure, a "perfect" player will find the best move and preserve the evaluation to what is was before his move  but as his opponent, you sure as heck want to try and take him to  (or atleast "be playing" ) positions where it is *TOUGH* for him to do so.   

Edit: Of course, it also goes without saying that when said opponent fails to find the best move, the burden is on you to find the correct response to capitalize on this swing of the "evaluation" meter in your direction.

A practical example of this is to let a computer print an evaluation score graph of a game with two GMs playing and compare it to a game with two novices playing.

The GM-chart will very often have a steadily (tiny increments/deltas to the E-score per move) moving line; either up/down or even flat (!) but nothing dramatic for most of the game. Usually the position finally converts to a clear win and it is only then that the graph begins to spike.

The novice-chart however will look like an earthquake alert on a seismometer because neither player has the skill required to consistently preserve the shift in evaluation in response to their opponent's bad moves.

The "simple" proof still doesn't take into account that I think it's pretty much impossible for both sides to equally worsen their positions at an even rate, even with the best play. At some point, one person's position has to be better, and thus one could say that he or she bettered his position.

The only way out of this I see is to take an extremely pessimistic, glass-half-empty perspective and say that the only thing one can do is pick the best out of all the possible bad moves that hurt your position so that you worsen your position at a slower rate than that of your opponent. Basically, there is no way to improve the position, so you just have to do everything possible to make it slightly less worse, and hope that your opponent is making mistakes at a faster rate.

No one should ever speak of playing a good move, because there are no good moves. Every single move, even a mate in one, is a mistake because it made your position worse than it was before, even though you won the game.

I think this is a very strange and depressing way of strategizing in a chess game.

Me: 1. d4

Inner-me: "$*#^@, I just screwed up my position. I shouldn't have played that because now I'm totally losing now against my opponent's superior position. I hope he makes an equally bad move as me, the best player in the world."

"Trying is the first step toward failure." Homer Simpson

This guy right here, with the cows at are filing, he is the efen mani.

I think the key point here is to note that while one cannot improve their position on their move, that does not mean the same thing as "your position can only get worse each time you make a move"; but rather it means "your position can only get worse or remain at its current standing each time you make a move". The second part of the statement is vital here. Which means that in some sense yes, the opening position is "perfect", but with best play (as in, the true, game-terminology-accurate, chess-has-been-solved-and-32-piece-tablebases-are-available sort of best play, not the Rybka-says-it-wins sort of "best play") none of your moves will actually make it worse - your position will still remain at the "perfect" evaluation, just not any better.

(Caveat: This is speaking from the standpoint of the side that has a forced win/draw with best play, not one that has a forced loss with best play from both sides; because it becomes hard to quantify what the "best move" is if you're going to lose with best play from both sides, and it's rather awkward to say your position is "perfect" in that scenario.)

Finally one topic that we can really discuss something! Thumbs up.

First I don't think this theory needs any GM support (although it is welcomed I guess) because it really isn't necessary that he/ she had ever thought in this way.

From my extreme point of view I could conclude that from starting position it is 'white to play and draw'. The four moves that draw are obviously the knight moves. Then black has to move the knight aswell otherwise he weakens his/ her position and white with a perfect play has a forced win based on an exploitation of previously made weakness (the one black made). But to exploit it, he/ she has to weaken himself aswell, but weakening himself/ herself leads to position where black has to adjust to white's weakeng in a way he/ she weakens himself/ herself even more.

So the perfectly played game would be moving a knights back and forth. (But don't ask me to play a game against you with moving just a knight- I'll lose. That is because I am not able to exploit your weakening. Sorry.) So in fact high class chess is after all really a boring game.

Conclusion formed in a rule: Adjust your position to your opponent's weakening by weakening yourself less than your opponent has himself/ herself and then exploit the weakness.

@Musikamole: Really great topic you opened here. Plus nice quote from NM Dan Heisman.

Thank you for the kind remarks. I must admit that the idea of not being able to improve my position is both shocking and not all that easy to grasp as a novice player.

I do, however, find this idea to be most instructive, as I am far more focused on looking for mistakes that my opponent makes and doing the best to capitalize on them. In the past month or so I have been getting better at identifying the most rudimentary weaknesses in my opponent's position, as well as that of my own.

When I first took the game up about a year ago, I really couldn't make sense of how to win after viewing several GM games, which led me to believe that chess might always end in a tie unless someone blunders or makes a few mistakes. 

It really does seem like I can only win if my opponent makes more mistakes than I do. Likewise, I don't think I can alone create a decisive/winning advantage by way of a brilliant combination or a few devious moves. For me to win, it seems that my opponent must cooperate by failing to see my clever plan and fall for my trap.

It's so darn difficult to win at chess when facing an opponent of similar strength!

It's great if these realizations have improved your play, but don't forget the point of your topic which was you can't improve your position because a true evaluation can't be improved upon only made worse.  For your first move this is easy, but in the middle game to hold the true evaluation constant you'll have to find accurate moves based on the position and not just trying to avoid errors.  This is required more often than capitalizing on a blunder.

Of course you already knew this... that chess is more than waiting around for your opponent to blunder.  It's just that the beginning true evaluation being equal doesn't mean you can relax about finding good moves and simply try to avoid bad ones... it means the opposite, that you're going to have to play moves that this evaluation requires and depends upon.  You may not be able to "improve" you position in that sense, but you will have to further the needs of the position and have it unfold in the correct way... and setting traps or making clever plans would clearly only make the evaluation worse i.e. they are bad moves.  More than avoiding errors, you have to find strong moves too!

On a related note, because perfect play is impossible (no one can keep the actual evaluation constant over many moves much less a whole game) we humans (and computers) rely on our subjective evaluations and what amounts to our best guesses.  In this sense it is possible to improve a position, to make progress... even computers evaluations (subjective it's true) can shift up after they make their move.  So in a sense I'm saying while Heisman is absolutely correct (and it's even obvious after you hear it) that it's something that's a bit detached from practical experience and more of a thought experiment that tickles the mind than anything else.

But I do like Heisman and like I said ealier the stuff you've done here is no exception.  I guess the main realization in regard to your opponent's moves are "only his errors allow me to win the game."

So my big long post was just trying to say to be sure and include the other half of that realization which is in regard for your moves "only the best move(s) are not errors and only finding strong moves leads to winning a game."

So it goes hand in hand, to win your opponent must make errors and you must make moves that hold the true evaluation (best moves) even if only 1, which would be checkmate.  The hardest thing to do is win a won game... and as Heisman points out that's because it involves perfect play (at least at some point)