Improving One’s Position Is…

If we extend the analogy of a "perfect" starting position, does that mean we have 960 different, perfect positions, or just 1 perfect position and 959 inferior ones?

It's this kind of ideology that the opening position is perfect and that the theory of equilibrium is scripture that leads some to conclude that Black has better winning chances in theory because he can use the power of full disclosure of information to formulate the perfect counterpunch to his opponent's inaccuracy, when in reality White is the one with the advantage.

I understand the sentiment that a Master like Heisman wants to impart on his students in that one must always seek to play the best moves, not let up for a minute, and force the opposition to blunder, but in this case, the ends do not justify the means of poor theory.

We need a crowbar to separate the two or three "claims" made in this thread.  NM Heisman never advocated the "perfection starts at move 1" claim nor did he state this in his articles.   Nor did he state that White is winning or Black is winning from move one.  

He merely re-stated what game theory has already proven : that you cannot improve any position with a move, but playing less than the best move results in a deterioration of the evaluation of a position.

Dissing one of the best chess educators around with a "poor theory" label requires that you argue logically to dispute what he said ... not what people interpreting it said.

Can we further elaborte on how game theory has proven that a position cannot be improved, but that by playing a less than perfect move results in the deterioration of it? This statement seems to presuppose equilibrium as a law when in fact, it is still a theory.

Moreover, since best play vs. best play exists on in theory, the praxis of chess suggests that the statistics show that White does gain a substantial advantage through proven opening moves like 1. d4.

I would also be interested in an elaboration on this proof. I can look my move as an improvement that my opponent must match to maintain equilibrium or... as not deteriorating my position and then wait to see if my opponent doesn't deteriorate his position to maintain equilibrium.

In either case, I will probably still play 1. e4.

Shivsky, ModernCalvin and orangehonda - wow! I read every word. Great stuff!!

@ Shivsky - You are doing a far better job than I of explaining and defending Dan Heisman's position.

@ orangehonda - Very instructive words. I will continue to strive when finding a good move, to then look for a better one. Too many times in my first 6-9 months here, I would find a good move, play it, only to realize later that I missed a forking move, or worse yet a piece that was left en prise.

On the flip side of the coin, the shocking realization that I can not improve my own position has also made my game stronger. I am now far more alert to mistakes/weaknesses made by my opponents, and then making the appropriate responses to increase my chances of winning. A very recent game has made this all too clear. It was looking like a draw until my opponent blundered a critical center pawn. The game went from equality to a decisive advantage.

@ ModernCalvin - I am a big fan of d4 as well!   I've posted this quote from Dan Heisman once, but I'll do it once more and highlight what seems to be the crux of the argument currently. This quote is actually difficult for me to fully make sense of, so I leave it to the more experienced players here to explore in greater depth.

Again, thank you all for the outstanding contributions to this discussion. 

"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

How?

By seeing chess for what it truly is, one can form a more proper evaluation of the position. Thus, better play will follow.

Many believe that chess is a zero-sum game. The total benefit to all players in the game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero (or more informally put, a player benefits only at the expense of others).

Whether a move is worth spending a tempo depends on what the move is.

Compare: That Q:f7  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 deliver checkmate – it is no longer White's move.

Should the White have passed instead of giving checkmate ? Is the White's position after checkmating better than it was before ?

The position was winning before playing checkmate and the position was winning after playing checkmate. White did not magically get a winning position by checkmating black, white only played the natural conclusion of the position he was in. In a position where you have mate in 1, you have already won, you can either win keeping your position equally good or you can fail to play mate in 1, making your position worse.

If the White played a move that did not give checkmate, and then the Black played a move that prevented checkmate, wouldn't you say that the White made his position worse ?

I guess that I am trying to say that a position (typically) contains possibilities to make moves that will make it better, moves that will keep it the same, and moves that will make it worse. Why should the best move be more natural than any other move ?

First, I suggest that you assume a more polite tone if you are interested in a conversation. 

The White's position is better after making the move that delivered checkmate, since it wasn't the only legal move in the position. It was a possible move in that position, yes, but still needed to be made.

Yes, that's exactly what I did say in my post. White can make his position worse by failing to play the mate. But since white's position is winning just before he plays mate, playing mate doesn't make it any more winning, it just plays out the winning move -- the move that caused the evaluation to indicate winning in the first place.

Everyone who has a problem coming to grips with this concept need only look at the E score in their favorite engine at all the positions/scenarios described above. 

Evaluation assumes best play ... that is all that this thread is about. Nothing more!!!!

if you're going to keep arguing around that, we might as well take potshots at pythagoras ... I hear his theorem may be busted ... 

Well if the engine (or a human)  evaluated the position as won, that is because they already found a winning move. It's not like the position somehow wins itself.

Edit: i.e. The next move was in-calculated in the evaluation as if it had already been played.

Consider the equator of the earth and two lines of longitude. The two longitudinal lines meet at the north pole to form a triangle with the equator. In fact, they form a right triangle since a longitude line makes a right angle with the equator. So we should be able to apply pythagoras' theorem, except that it fails...

It doesn't fail at all. I mean not at all...  What fails are the triangle and the "right angles" you've described. Pythagoras was quite careful to define things in terms of planes. "For any three points ON A PLANE.... The north pole and any two points  intersecting the equator can be found on a plane. (But the lines of longitude are curved along the surface of a sphere and not coplanar in pythagorean space). The angles formed by those intersections conforms perfectly to pythagoraen mathematics (who inspired my name, by the way-- 27Pyth -- 3 to the 3 pythagoras -- nerdy enough for ya?). Pythagoras did not have a mathematics for curved space (that he shared with the rest of us, at any rate.)

Reminds of of some forum discussions:

From Fermat’s Last Theorem by Simon Singh:

One story claims that a young student by the name of Hippasus was idly toying with the number √2, attempting to find the equivalent fraction. Eventually he came to realize that no such fraction existed, i.e. that √2 is an irrational number. Hippasus must have been overjoyed by his discovery, but his master was not. Pythagoras had defined the universe in terms of rational numbers, and the existence of irrational numbers brought his ideal into question. The consequence of Hippasus’ insight should have been a period of discussion and contemplation during which Pythagoras ought to have come to terms with this new source of numbers. However, Pythagoras was unwilling to accept that he was wrong, but at the same time he was unable to destroy Hippasus’ argument by the power of logic. To his eternal shame he sentenced Hippasus to death by drowning.

http://michaelgr.com/2008/11/15/just-be-glad-you-arent-pythagoras-student/

 

I've heard a quite different account of this story. Pythagoras knew pi was irrational ( a property he thought unique to pi), and this was a closely guarded secret of the Pythagorean Sect (Many forget that Pythagorean Geometry had a religious component.... Pythagoras taught and believed that his mathematics had a relationship to divinity.) Hippasus' did not discorver irrational numbers but he  showed that there were other irrational numbers indeed an an infinite number of irrational numbers (and flash forward with Cantor a bigger set of irrational than rational!!!). This threw a rather large wrench into the Pythagorean Math religion and yes Hippasus was executed: the man who knew too much, quite literally!  

That's not true. The person on the move can use his move to improve his position over his opponent's, since after his move some of the options available to the next player are gone because of tactical or positional motifs changing. In other words, take the starting position. Say a computer says that from the starting position for BLACK, the perfect move is e5 and gives a material advantage of 5000. White can play 1.d4 and therefore improve his position because 1...e5 is now not available for black.

 I like that version. Someone alert Dan Brown!