Perfect Chess

When I post an article with a game in it (played by people other than myself), I almost always get a comment that goes something like this:

"That game was ridiculous. White just got lucky.  If Black had made some better moves, he could have won with his extra material for sure."

But let's be honest. Do we really expect these games to be perfect? After all, I doubt any of the games ever posted on this site are "perfect" games, with no mistakes. Also, it doesn't seem likely that anyone can actually play a perfect game of chess, since there is likely to be at least one mistake.

Here's a quote from a 1950 paper about computer chess: "With chess it is possible, in principle, to play a perfect game or construct a machine to do so as follows: One considers in a given position all possible moves, then all moves for the opponent, etc., to the end of the game (in each variation). The end must occur, by the rules of the games after a finite number of moves (remembering the 50 move drawing rule). Each of these variations ends in win, loss or draw. By working backward from the end one can determine whether there is a forced win, the position is a draw or is lost. It is easy to show, however, even with the high computing speed available in electronic calculators this computation is impractical."

So if it is almost impossible to play perfect chess, they why do we like to point out the mistakes in other games (I admit I do this too, perhaps too much), perhaps ones considered the greatest chess games of all time? Are we all being hypocritical, or is there some explanation behind all this? Is it just human nature or something? I would appreciate some feedback since I would really like to find some answer.

Maybe this question is dumb and I'm wasting your time, but hopefully I can at least get some good responses.

It's human nature.  We like to flaunt our feathers and insult somebody else's.

Um... Isn't it obvious?

If you don't know your mistakes, you can never improve. They're just helping you out.

I think it's clearly all of the above.  The fact is weaker players than those even playing in a posted game might insult a move (quite possibly that they didn't even understand.)  Or they might suggest that you should have lost, and that your opponent was simply making "obvious" mistakes. They will do this for various reasons, or quite possibly for no reason other than to have done it (pure boredom I don’t know. :)  )

Perhaps this will sound like a stereotype, but I believe that most good chess players will display an appropriate amount of etiquette when constructively criticizing another player’s game.   We can’t forget however that some are not inclined to show typical manners, even more so to online players whom they have no affiliation.  I personally do not judge these people for their approach, as I find it quite fitting for a large number of the online players, but that is just my opinion.

Anyway, I’m certainly at no level of play to be commenting on others games so I doubt you’ll see me in any of those articles; however, you presented an interesting well thought out question, that I thought deserved a well thought out answer.

You did misconstrue what I said. Some people are assholes of course, but some people give constructive criticism and some people (and perhaps you're one of them) take offence at that, especially when they're proud of a move they've done but are shown that it's flawed.

But even if they are an asshole about it, if their chess advice is sound, just take it and ignore the sarcasm (or if you really want to, get annoyed and miss some good chess advice). But most people that get to a good level in chess have had their ego bruised enough times themselves to get a healthy confident modesty, and most people that are arrogant about it are either way way way up the top of chess, or aren't really that good at chess at all.

I know what you mean!  Sure, in the top circles or when analyzing with a powerful engine such as Shredder or Fritz, there will likely be a better move available! 

The problem here is that we aren’t seeing 30+ moves deep, we are just trying to trap the guy’s bishop.  When you put that kind of pressure on yourself in the game, it becomes a job at times, and my just lose the flair and spice that drew you to it in the first place!

Yes, we all want to improve, and sure, when it comes right down to it most of us would like to be at the GM level – but for now, it’s still a `fun` game for me, and I am continuing to improve, albeit at a snail’s pace!

This guy sure thinks he can play perfect chess, but no, chess will never be perfect unless we play aginst an opponent that clearly blunders often. 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/i-pitched-a-perfect-game

In the blurb on my blog I warned against expecting any advanced chess analysis.  It's not that I wouldn't like to do it, it's just that I don't know enough.  I'm conscious that very often I get winning positions in my games that would be losing positions against players who really know what they're doing.

That's not false modesty ... it's a fact of life that I've become aware of after forty years playing this game.  My chess.com rating is usually in the low to mid 1800s and that seems high to somebody who might be locked on 1300, but it's pretty low to somebody who rates 2400+.  In real life, my OTB rating is usually about 1600 (at present it's just a little below that).  So I don't expect to be able to handle analysis and in most of my posts I usually keep to fairly obvious, fairly simple stuff.

But back to your query about unfriendly comments:  don't worry about it. 

I learned good manners in the school playground where I very quickly realised that if I opened my mouth too much I'd soon be eating a knuckle sandwich.  On the internet that doesn't apply and a lot of the people who make offensive comments are the people who would mind their manners if they were with you face-to-face.  Perhaps they're not all gutless, but you can bet that a lot of them are built that way.

Since chess has an almost incalculable number of possible moves and since the best move in a given position is often a matter of opinion it seems that a 'perfect' game is also a matter of opinion. One can identify gross mistakes which allow winning combinations however, but whether those combinations are actually forcing (unless they're all checks), who knows?

I think we all tend to do this a bit.  Just human nature I guess. It's easy to excuse our own mistakes and highlight others' instead!

If both sides play 'perfectly' there would be one theoretical game. This presents a question: Is whites opening advantage enough to force a win in this theoretically perfect game, or would it end in a draw? I don't think anybody can prove this, as it would require nearly every combination move sequences possible. The number of possible lines is astronomical.

It seems obvious that to beat your opponent you must play better than them. Naturally it follows that if they lose, somewhere in the game they have made a mistake. The person that makes the least mistakes will win. Games like the Evergreen, Immortal, and Opera games are not perfect, that would be like saying the win was forced. Somewhere the losing side had to have made a mistake.

the position that is 'clear' to some, is opaque to others, completely occluded to some, and a few others, barely able to see through the 'fog' on the board and in their minds, they 'stumble' onto the right move by either happenchance or by unconscious and unwitting neural connections - that maybe their brains cogitated up without their conscious volition.

   if you study tactics daily, your chess 'board vision' will improve over time, and you will become able to see 'deeper' (more moves) into more positions, from having seen something similar, merely through wide exposure.

    If you study chess problems just before going to sleep, your brain 'may' continue working on them while you sleep, and the neural connections formed without your conscious effort - but you will reap the rewards of 'flashes of brilliance' on the board in your games - only to draw a winning lucena position or muddle in the middle of a philidor draw (as did prodigy and GM, Magnus Carlsen a couple years ago. - USCF helped everyone understand it better by writing it up in their magazine...)

    Humans are 'fallible' - that is the nature of the beast.  If one makes a 'mistake' in a chess game, and there is lots of material left, one might become more creative in applying the principles that remain applicable, and find a super-great way to win the position regardless of having dropped a piece or pawn.   desperation is often the 'mother of invention', and when one has 'lost' the position, one is free to attempt any sort of swindle possible.

    See:   Chess for Tigers by Simon Webb - some really succinct descriptions of ways to succeed in spite of one's own mistakes...

regards to all,   

Ret