Is there an upper limit in chess?

Sort:
X_PLAYER_J_X

"Concentrate on material gains. Whatever your opponent gives you take, unless you see a good reason not to."

-Bobby Fischer

 

"It’s just you and your opponent at the board and you're trying to prove something."

-Bobby Fischer

 

"Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind."

-Bobby Fischer

papajo_r
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:

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.

well there are people in the 1000 range that dont know how to mate this... so yea I believe that magnus could end up in a draw or in an infinate play against quite a few 1000's in this position :P

but what bugs me in your argument is that you used an already concluded game, I mean for example magnus would never end up king against rook with a 1000 player... so i suppose a 5000(imaginary player) would never reach this scenario against magnus... if he would (or if a 10000 player against the 5000 player and so on ) then we reach to the conclusion I already mentioned in my last post.

AggressiveAggressive
Lagomorph wrote:

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

In medieval Spain, the title of King was given to the best chess player. But that's the only example I've ever heard of though. Also don't feed the trolls.

joshuagambrell

@papajo_r: We don't know. Many of the best players in history believe that chess is drawn with best play, but humanity will not know the answer to your question with certainy for many, many years.

This article doesn't directly address your question, but I think it has some information you might be interested in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess 

chessterd5

there are some interesting ideas in this thread.

I think the answer to the OP's original question is yes. To use his example we are just figureing out an avenue for proper solution of any given position by strictly following the "agreed rules " of chess. The reason this is possibile is the tangible, physical moves themselves, and they are finite. Although, being able to mentally RECOGNIZE what the proper sequence of moves is (The Tal position example.) is our intangible that I believe the OP has labeled as intelligence. Yes there is an " Upper Limit" to chess, I believe its called opening theory or endgame theory. Where there is a perfect known sequence of moves that must be played if you wish to win. And have been figured out by other men. The majority of our  "originality" comes in much more complex positions. Most positions have already been reduced to the proper sequence but some are still left to be found.

KingMeTaco666

I actually do belive that chess at its very best is a draw.

BenaiahWright

Lagomorph wrote:

What answer are you looking for?

it is quite clear that in a certain position , correct play by a 1200 player can beat a 2100 player. Does that make the 1200 player ranked 2100 ? No,

Your question makes no sense

Lagomorph wrote: What answer are you looking for?it is quite clear that in a certain position , correct play by a 1200 player can beat a 2100 player. Does that make the 1200 player ranked 2100 ? No,Your question makes no sense not THAT clear...and the question makes perfect sense. wouldn't it to a certain level of intelligence/creativity to get to your hypothetical positron? I'm sure a 6 year old would never get there.

BenaiahWright
Lagomorph wrote:

What answer are you looking for?

it is quite clear that in a certain position , correct play by a 1200 player can beat a 2100 player. Does that make the 1200 player ranked 2100 ? No,

Your question makes no sense

It's not THAT clear...and the question makes perfect sense. Wouldn't it take a certain level of intelligence/creativity to get to your hypothetical position in the first place? I'm sure a 6 year old would never get there.

papajo_r
Fiveofswords wrote:

anyway hidden in my post is in fact a reasonable upper bound answer to your question. lets say random mover has rating of 1 or 2 (lol). then if we can guess the chance of perfect play (lets say theres on average 2 legal moves that are equally good and 'perfect'..and i dunno average number of legal moves is 32. then say average game length 60 moves. then 1 in 16 to power of 60 is the chance it will draw (or beat) highest rated player. do the math.

It so happens that I am a mathematician :P

The problem with your theory is that in every next move the percentage of randomly picking the best one is expodentially decreased since the previous move (even the perfect one) changes the reality of the board.

to put it more simply you cant win the chess board if your 1st move was perfect (I dont even consider the truth that there isnt a perfect 1st move but lets assume there is) not even if the 2nd and the 3rd one are ...

Its like wining in lotto its almost implausible to get all 6 numbers but its possible to win... whats impossible is to win lotto lets say like 10 times in a row. same with the chess game.

FanOfGreekTheBig

Oh my god, why are people mean and can't be nice to each other even when they have differing opinions? Like this is how wars start, over trivialities.

FanOfGreekTheBig

But OP, your question is quite interesting, would it be possible for a perfect AI with the white pieces to always win against a perfect AI that has the black pieces? I think not, if they both play perfectly, it should end in a draw.