Proposition: Chessboard is a working simulated abstraction of reality. It can be philosophical, mathematical, artistic, scientific, or spiritual. Reality too can be divided into philosophy, mathematics, art, science, and spiritual. 

Philosophers: try to understand infinity

Spiritualist: try to "become" infinity.

Artists: know love, a union of reality and infinity.

Mathematicians: try to "become" reality.

Scientists: try to understand reality.

Each of these has applied to the chessboard at some point. And each of these has had a world champion associated with them, or rather World Champions have taken various pieces of these. Some only one: Bobby Fischer is purely spiritual about chess, insofar as one can be. Now do we understand what I am trying to say?

No. It is a board game.

Other proposition. The chessboard is more than the sum of its consituent parts, as is reality. For example, there is one chessboard and 33(including the clock) pieces in a tournament setting. BUT there are more possible positions than there are stars in the heavens. The Universe is much bigger than the chessboard, but there are more possible fractal possibilities than there ae chess positions and all these could add up a "single atom" as the dalai lama says. If that single atom is therefore conscious of its own existence, then that single atom would be no more and no less than the God or our imagining. Do we understand now?

Why is it merely a board game? It has been called an art, a science, a sport. It is so many things to so many people. Chess is not simply anything. In the past it was used to illuminate mysteries and define social status. I recommend you read The Immortal Game. It illustrates this innocent wonder literarily and perfectly as can be most possibly imagined.

I studied history. Show me where chess defined social status any more than knoiwng how to play cards or how to dress or how to dance.

You have yet to put forward an argument to support yourself

Lol

(oop, excited double post)

Have I not? It seems you are right, however, it will seem like a hat trick, because it is a philosophical argument. Imagine a square cut into four pieces. There is a phenomena here where the square is not four squares but five, including the entire square. This is an easy proof used to understand a concept called form and a concept called Form. Form is the square, each archetypical of their "squareness" and form is how they create an entity. The fifth square.

The universe can be said to have similar principles. For example, You or I would like to believe that I exist, but in truth, You or I are composed of millons of you or Is, that is to say, the cells that comrpise our being, each holding the mithochondrial blueprint for our form within them. Our form there is probably also Form. The CGLness that makes me me and the Lagomorphness that makes you you.

However, you and I alone are not perfect. If you ever heard the saying "humans are imperfect" then I challenge you to understand why. I think its cause humans are not Whole. But then what is? The universe is not infinite, but its also not Whole, only We together with the Universe inside of us are Whole. Together, we create a perfect, not even being, but entity, which is a mirror of our inner minds, because our inner minds are a mirror of it. This is the nature of God. Now anything can mirror anything, that is why the chessboard is a mirror of life, because the Universe is full of mirrors. You can find yourself in anything. Love anything or anyone. Think about human interaction, at its best, and tell me that doesn't say anything about everything else.

If you want to track the forum, there is a "Track this forum topic" button above the "Post Your Reply" box.  Then, everytime somebody posts, chess.com will send you an alert.

Wait...nevermind, you couldn't have meant that.  What do you mean "sticked?"

You are right.

I had a sandwich for lunch today. There was a bit of Napoleon Bonaparte in it.

Sarcasm won't win your arguments for you buddy. You know what I mean. Where's your argument to counter mine?

I am still waiting for your argument to be put before the jury. i am afraid so far your cat is still in command of the keyboard.

K I'm done here then. 

So isn't OP just asking if chess is a draw with perfect play, and based on the engines we have now, how strong would the stongest engine be.

Yeah, he didn't know how to actually ask this question but in typical chess.com fashion the forum idiots ran the thread in to a different direction without even trying to understand it.

I request its pinned, always at the top of General Chess Discussion forever.. I send request to support@ chess.com

  lets wait and see!

Crazygodlover, its just odd that you brought your god into op's chess question. Then you go as far as to say any one with intelligence belives in god (witch I will assume you think is the god you believe in). So first lets think of who are considered the worlds most intelligent people, Bill Gates comes instantly to mind. Guess what hes an atheiest. Same with Stephen Hawking, Mark Zuckerberg and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I'm sure your smarter than these people and im sure your number value with god creating the universe =1 and all other posabilitys =0 is correct (hope you can uderstand basic sarcasm).

This all has nothing to do with op's question even your first post has nothing to do with what the op askes, what hes asking (not sure if you grasped it) is if someone who knows what their doing (in chess) will beat someone who is clueless every time regardless of the posistion.  To witch my answer is the person who is clueless has a very low chance  but it is possible, I have a friend who I've betten 70 times to 1 (he has a 1200 rating) I almost always let him play takebacks when we're OTB and I still usally win. 

Crazygodlover. Please take your god nonsense to the correct places on the internet, such as some christian website, and lets keep chess about chess and not try and incorparate nonsense into it.

To keep it intrsting here is a game where I beat an oponent much stronger than me.

Is it? I mean how are you so sure? because you cant think of a way beating the position and you know that most GMs have the same opinion? is that enough for being so sure and make that claim?

For example here is a mysterious endgame study that when introduced none of the great GMs of the time could find an answer to it and all agreed that there is no solution (including the computer analysis) though Michail Tahl despite everyone thinking the oposite did come up with the answer.

So I think your problem is arrogance... thats why you cant accept the question. You think that positional advantage is something clear as water and not a subjective evaluation thats only valid as long as the person who proposed it is brighter than the rest (and therefor forsees much further than the rest) but what happens if an even brighter person comes in a way and suggest a solution to that problem? and then an even brighter dismisses that solution because he found a move that answers the previously submited solution and so on.

Here for example the chess elite (including kasparov karpov etc) concluded that white cant win  and if Tahl didnt came up with the solution for white after a walk he took thikning about the problem we still would believe that this position is lost for white.

And ofcourse there are hundreds of arguments supporting this like the benoni openning which for years we believed that leaves black in a losing position though more brighter people (or computers) found a modern variation that gives the iniciative back to black.

And to make it more clear  hoping that you understand my question now... more intelligent people/computers may find a new variation were the benoni position leaves black again in a losing streak and so on...

but is there a limit? is there a point that no matter how smart and good you are in chess there is no hope for you? because of the limitations of the game which has about 10^120 moves

Which is a vastly HUGE number incoprehendable for our minds... (and thats maybe why we cant forsee at the present and be able to give a definitive answer to my question)

But there will be a time were a system of such complexity would be solvable and all the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 .... moves will be calculated in a reasonable time frame...

will that mean that there is no victory? there is no greater strategy?

Are we just trying to give solutions to an already solved puzzle and are we just making mistakes after mistakes thinking that we solved it only because we are limited in our horizon?

Now I hope you better understood the point of this topic.

Well yea that is correct I mean that is whats the topic all about only that the real reason for posting it is the subquestion: "is all this scalable?".

For example there is a reason why you can beat so easy your friend 70 to 1 letting him get takebacks etc and still win.

Which exactly is the reason doesnt matter (for the porpuse of the topic) call it IQ call it expirience call it both doesnt matter or it could even be  an other atribute you have and your friend doesnt or doesnt poses it in the same level as you allowing you to beat him that way..

but for sure there is a reason you beating your friend that easily lets simplify the reason and call it intelligence

So you can beati him with such ease because lets say you are 2 times more intelligent than him ok? (just for the sake of argument)

here cames the scaling now :P

Lets suppose there is a person called B who is 2 times more intelligent than you would he be able to beat you just as easy as you beat your friend?

And whoa... look look there is an other person called C who has 2 times more intelligence than B! could he beat B as easily as B beats you? and you beat your friend? and what about person D who has 2 times more of the atribute (we called it intelligence just to simplyfy the question) than C can D beat him that easily as C can B, B can beat you and you can beat your friend?

And does it go on and on up to infinity? or up to a point there is no better play and there will be 2 people "n0" and "n0-1" were "n0" has 2 times the atribute "intelligence" than "n0-1" but still cant beat him because both are so good and bright there arent simply any moves left allowing one to beat the other as C does B and B does you etc.

And if there is an end to this what does this mean for chess? maybe it isnt the perfect strategy game we all believe it to be since for it to be that it has to "allow" the undisputed much stronger oponent to introduce his superiority by having the means to apply it and win the game otherwise its almost a game of "luck" that we think its a perfect game of strategy only because we are not bright enough to bring it to its limits and see its underlying truth.

Thats my complete question :P

In chess as in life there is something called Brute Force.

Brains vs Brawns

While the person with the Brains so to speak might have a better chance of defeating the player with Brawns.

The simple fact is if the Brawns player was to find himself ahead by a piece for example. It does not matter how smart the other player is.

There comes a point when that player would lose by Brute Force.

For example:

Black can win this. It does not matter how smart white is or how dumb white is. Black can force a win.

White may try to use his superior mind to resist the best he can.

However, if his oppoent does not messes up. Than He will lose.

Do you think if you gave Magnus Carlsen this position as white and a player rated 1000 this position as black.

Do you think Magnus would pull off some amazing move to avoid checkmate?

No he would not! He would hope for his opponent to blunder and if his opponent doesn't. He would suffer defeat. It is that simple.

Is there an upper limit in chess?

Yes there is an upper limit in chess but even they are bound by the rules and perimeters of the game.

You have your answer Sir.