From mathematical perspective chess is solvable in a sense that it does have a solution and there is a well defined algorithm for finding it. Period, end of story.
There are some arguments that it is not solvable practically as we may never have enough computational power. I do not have a s strong opinion on this one.
@Optimissed When matters can be forced, the shortest route to mate is always best. However, other moves that retain a clear win are not blunders. Some endgame theorists may call them inaccuracies.
In this position, from one of my tournament games, there is a single correct move. It wins, while all others lose.
I anticipated that position from one four moves earlier. Here one move wins, while all others lead to a slight edge for Black.
In between these two positions, I had multiple winning moves is two instances, but a single winning and only non-losing move one other time.
There can be one correct move, there can be multiple equally correct moves, there can be many winning moves, but often one stands slightly above the others.
I think it's b4 but that's doing it in my head when I'm very tired. b4 allows black only b6 and then c4. I looked at one variation only and black is zugzwanged. I think it probably applies to all variations. White wins the e pawn and breaks through.
From mathematical perspective chess is solvable in a sense that it does have a solution and there is a well defined algorithm for finding it. Period, end of story.
There are some arguments that it is not solvable practically as we may never have enough computational power. I do not have a strong opinion on this one.
Nothing developed as yet, that could work in practice. So it's necessary to find a different type of algorithm. Full stop, end of story.
@Optimissed When matters can be forced, the shortest route to mate is always best. However, other moves that retain a clear win are not blunders. Some endgame theorists may call them inaccuracies.
In this position, from one of my tournament games, there is a single correct move. It wins, while all others lose.
I anticipated that position from one four moves earlier. Here one move wins, while all others lead to a slight edge for Black.
In between these two positions, I had multiple winning moves is two instances, but a single winning and only non-losing move one other time.
There can be one correct move, there can be multiple equally correct moves, there can be many winning moves, but often one stands slightly above the others.
I think it's b4 but that's doing it in my head when I'm very tired. b4 allows black only b6 and then c4. I looked at one variation only and black is zugzwanged. I think it probably applies to all variations. White wins the e pawn and breaks through.
That's the critical move that I found before exchanging rooks. Without it, Black has more pawn moves once the predictable zugzwang position is reached. This one move removes two of Black's, as each loses a pawn.
Yes and well done for spotting it. The temptation is to think that the rooks should be kept on but swapping them costs black an important tempo.
From mathematical perspective chess is solvable in a sense that it does have a solution and there is a well defined algorithm for finding it. Period, end of story.
There are some arguments that it is not solvable practically as we may never have enough computational power. I do not have a strong opinion on this one.
Nothing developed as yet, that could work in practice. So it's necessary to find a different type of algorithm. Full stop, end of story.
Necessary for whom? I think humanity has enough problems that are more important than solving a board game. I am totally fine with chess never being solved.
Yes and well done for spotting it. The temptation is to think that the rooks should be kept on but swapping them costs black an important tempo.
It was a memorable and successful endgame that also gave me sole possession of second place in a very strong tournament. The game was part of my best streak ever—eleven consecutive wins, most against opponents who were 1850-2050, and led to my peak USCF rating just above 1980.
My opponent and I both use the endgame in our teaching. He’s USCF Expert Class with a rating near 2100 last time I checked.
@Optimissed When matters can be forced, the shortest route to mate is always best. However, other moves that retain a clear win are not blunders. Some endgame theorists may call them inaccuracies.
Others think that in practice, the clearest route to mate is always best. I agree with them.
From mathematical perspective chess is solvable in a sense that it does have a solution and there is a well defined algorithm for finding it. Period, end of story.
There are some arguments that it is not solvable practically as we may never have enough computational power. I do not have a strong opinion on this one.
Nothing developed as yet, that could work in practice. So it's necessary to find a different type of algorithm. Full stop, end of story.
Necessary for whom? I think humanity has enough problems that are more important than solving a board game. I am totally fine with chess never being solved.
Exactly, so it's only necessary in regard to an unnecessary achievement. Point taken.
Yes and well done for spotting it. The temptation is to think that the rooks should be kept on but swapping them costs black an important tempo.
It was a memorable and successful endgame that also gave me sole possession of second place in a very strong tournament. The game was part of my best streak ever—eleven consecutive wins, most against opponents who were 1850-2050, and led to my peak USCF rating just above 1980.
My opponent and I both use the endgame in our teaching. He’s USCF Expert Class with a rating near 2100 last time I checked.
I also had similar glory times and was unbeatable at one time in that kind of rating range. My peak BCF OTB grade was equivalent to about 1950 FIDE but I was playing too many games and my potentially most productive time in chess, when I was in my early 40s and five years after taking the game seriously, joining the local chess club and studying it, coincided with doing a philosophy degree; and so all chess studies had to stop because I was busy enough with two part time jobs and being responsible for getting my son to school and picking him up. And of course, walking for miles and miles with him on my shoulders when he got tired, through the woods. Good times.
I agree with those who say that luck plays a bigger role when the players are inexperienced, and becomes less and less of a factor, the more experienced the players get.
With novices, the "luck" takes the form of players wandering into winning or losing positions, by accident. A player might stumble into a mating net, without either player even realizing it.
"Oh! I checkmated you? What? Okay, hah! I was just trying to move my knight away from your bishop..."
I'd call that a form of luck.
Don't forget that a game of chess isn't under the control of players who don't understand the position. It's no use complaining that they have the chance to understand it. How can you separate the players from the game they're playing?
well in openings there certainly is luck for example if you want to play kings gambit e4 e5 is compulsory
1.f4 e5
Don't forget that a game of chess isn't under the control of players who don't understand the position. It's no use complaining that they have the chance to understand it. How can you separate the players from the game they're playing?
It absolutely is. Their pieces aren't being controlled by random chance in the game design. Its being controlled by them, whether good or bad.
What's all this about game design anyhow? Heaven knows who's put that into your head. It isn't anything to do with design when it's being played.
Exactly what? Still not following you.
Exactly what? Still not following you.
"It isn't any thing to do with game design when its being played" You literally just conceded the argument. lol still pretending to not understand people's
statements? Still pretending that chess is based and on luck like other board games? While pretending to be some advanced mathematician and philosopher but can't follow a simple argument? I accept your concession.
Chess is not based on luck by game design, aka random chance, and is instead based on moves being played by humans.
I'm afraid that, in common with some others here, you talk complete rubbish. What you write doesn't make sense and you don't know how to be logical. I'd been trying to be nice but you're too dumb to understand that.
It's only because computer engine assessments of positions are in common use that some people have been induced to believe that single, best moves exist in all positions, which is incorrect, although, of course, single, best moves do exist in positions with "forced moves" for which an alternative move would bring about a worse game result. However, humans have input into engine programming and also chess has never and almost certainly will never be "solved".
There is not necessarily a single best move in every positions, but there is always a certain number of best moves in positions that are either a forced win or a forced draw for a player making the move. From game theoretical point of view they are all equally strong, all other moves being bad. In a third type of position, in which our opponent has a forced win, there are simply no good moves (or you might say that the set of best moves is empty).
Chess has not been solved, but from a theoretical (mathematical) point of view it is absolutely solvable. We know for a fact that the solution exists, we just may never have enough computing power to find it.
If you didn't visit Ponz's thread then you mightn't believe how much this was debated there. The thread's quiet now because it couldn't go any further.
The question as to whether chess is solvable was raised. The prevailing attitude was that it definitely isn't solvable. That would be from a brute force search, because there are too many possible variations even for the fastest computers to complete it in thousands of years.
I was the lone voice there arguing that chess is potentially solvable from a mathematical perspective. I tried to explain how I thought that new algorithms might be developed that would analyse certain aspects of chess in order to express the unbalancing of a position and achievement of a winning position resulting from that by a mathematical expression. I'm not a mathematician but my son is a professional mathematician and it was watching his progress through his mathematical education that made me understand that maths is still evolving and the methodology is still strengthening. New processes are being invented/discovered. So I believe it's possible.