Give it time, eventually enough computing power will be available to actually explore the entire game tree (all possible move sequences) to find out what the perfect move set is. Because it is a zero-sum game (google it?) it is a fact that there is always the perfect move, and therefore a perfect game. Sorry ianmetcalf
PERFECT GAME
Sort:
Feb 11, 2009
0
#23
DukeRebuke wrote:
Ellbert wrote:
I played a game with Combat64 that I believe to have been a perfect game, only our kings remained on the board. Combat64 is a very good Chess player. I enjoyed the game. 8/19/2008 was when we started the game, 5 days per move.When you have time take look at the game.
For those that wanted to see The Perfect Game: http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7181437
so..... if both players make many mistakes and huge blunders its considered perfect?
pvmike wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
pvmike wrote:
Even if black doesn't move it still takes white 4 move to checkmate black, so unless black makes a mistake white still remain only 1 move ahead which is enough to check mate.
Extending that line of logic, if white doesn't move it takes black 4 moves to checkmate white and we're even again.
I could put forth a similar case that the shortest helpmate for white occurs on move 3, while the shortest helpmate for black occurs on move 2 and use that to argue that black has the advantage, but that argument is just as flawed as yours.
The fact of the matter is that black has to move, and even if he didn't, not moving isn't perfect play so it's not really relevant to the question that was posed.
I was simply demonstating that being one tempo ahead is not enough of advantage to win.
Ahh -- I misread. I take it you meant "white still remain only 1 move ahead which isn't enough to check mate." then?
I still don't follow the logic though, because in some situations one move (or, more accurately, a half move) is enough to checkmate even with even material (although not position) and black being able to move.
The question is really one of how much that initial half-tempo can be leveraged to accumulate additional advantages and whether those accumulated advantages are enough to ultimately tip the scales in favour of white. My feeling is that with perfect play it is not, but there's just no way to prove it until chess is solved.
Schachgeek wrote:
Set two identical engines to play each other and turn off "book" openings. Assuming each one plays the same strength (by running them on the same or an identical computer) you will likely achieve many draws. The number of draws will approach 100% depending on how many games you play, but there's no way 100% of the games will draw because of the advantage of the first move.
Or possibly because the engines aren't exhibiting perfect play -- there's noise in your experiment so you can't say with certainty that it's because of the first move advantage.
Draw. Games are won because of imperfect move.
Draw. If white won, then black made a mistake.
Aug 7, 2009
0
#28
Viewers of this topic may be interested in the US player Hans Berliner's remarks in connection with the Fifth World Correspondence Championship which he won by a margin of 3 points (score 14/16) over his nearest rivals, Hybl and Husak, both of Czechoslovakia, with the Soviet GM Zagarovskya further point behind in 4th place: "Correspondence chess can be early perfect chess, and I am by nature a perfectionist."
Sep 7, 2009
0
#29
Hi all
I just noticed a typo in my post. Instead of early perfect chess, please read this as nearly perfect chess!
This should be a really short thread:
"It is strongly believed that perfect play for both sides would result in a draw, but it has never been conclusively proven and won't be until computers are far stronger than they are today."
TheGrobe wrote:
pvmike wrote:
Even if black doesn't move it still takes white 4 move to checkmate black, so unless black makes a mistake white still remain only 1 move ahead which is enough to check mate.
Extending that line of logic, if white doesn't move it takes black 4 moves to checkmate white and we're even again.
I could put forth a similar case that the shortest helpmate for white occurs on move 3, while the shortest helpmate for black occurs on move 2 and use that to argue that black has the advantage, but that argument is just as flawed as yours.
The fact of the matter is that black has to move, and even if he didn't, not moving isn't perfect play so it's not really relevant to the question that was posed.
If white or black do not move, both have checkmate in four moves. However, there are two flaws in both statemens.
1) this is not deemed a chess game where only one colour moves its pieces.
2) black cannot move until white has moved one of its pieces.
White or black would make have to make monumental errors for them to be checkmated in four moves. You could argue that, if both players moved, that white has played the perfect game to checkmate black in four moves. The same could be said for black playing the perfect game to checkmate white in four moves.
A perfect game is, I believe, is impossible to acieve. Even in the example given by Dukerebuke, there were blunders from both sides and the outcome of the game was a draw.
Surely a perfect game is where no player makes any mistakes at all resulting in both players agreeing on a draw. Yet we know, that white or black has to make an error, if either is going to win.
Playing a perfect game is easy. It's been done many times. Like those boring symmetrical games in the Exchange Slav where nothing special happens that end in a draw after 15 moves.
It's hard to play a perfect game when one of the players is actually trying to win.
DukeRebuke wrote:
Ellbert wrote:
I played a game with Combat64 that I believe to have been a perfect game, only our kings remained on the board. Combat64 is a very good Chess player. I enjoyed the game. 8/19/2008 was when we started the game, 5 days per move.When you have time take look at the game.
For those that wanted to see The Perfect Game: http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=7181437
This game is so bad that I find it hard to believe its 2 computers playing ! They must both be very weak computers is all I can say ! There is no computer yet that plays "perfect chess" and certainly no human. I believe that given perfect play from both sides the result will be a draw.
I also am not one that believes there is a "best move" in all positions. There are many positions in which 2, or more, moves may be equal and which move is chosen often depends on the player choosing the move. In an equal position with several equal candidate moves to choose from a player like Alekhine would almost certainly choose a different move than a player like Capablanca. The choice often depends on a players preferred style of play.
Reb wrote:
I also am not one that believes there is a "best move" in all positions. There are many positions in which 2, or more, moves may be equal and which move is chosen often depends on the player choosing the move. In an equal position with several equal candidate moves to choose from a player like Alekhine would almost certainly choose a different move than a player like Capablanca. The choice often depends on a players preferred style of play.
Amen.
But theoretically, given 32 piece tablebases, four moves that look the same and it's a matter of taste might actually be resolved down to one winning and three not, so one in fact *is* best. Or if all moves are drawn, they are all best. Theoretically.
KyleJRM wrote:
This should be a really short thread:
"It is strongly believed that perfect play for both sides would result in a draw, but it has never been conclusively proven and won't be until computers are far stronger than they are today."
Kyle, there is a computer named Deep Blue that took on World Champion, Garry Kasparov in a match over 6 games.
In May 1997, IBM's Deep Blue Supercomputer played a fascinating match with the reigning World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov. The event was captured live only on this Web site, where millions of chess and computing fans tuned in to witness the event in real-time. This Web site is an archive of that event, and information on this site has not been updated since the end of the match. Some content may no longer be relevant or up to date, and some links may not function. In particular, the audio and video clips are no longer available. Current information about IBM deep computing can be found at the IBM Research home page.
The result of the match:
Game 1: 5/3/97:
Kasparov wins
Java viewerNon-Java versionText version of commentaryPGN file Game log: full, cleaned
Game 2: 5/4/97:
Deep Blue winsJava viewerNon-Java versionText version of commentaryPGN file Game log: full, cleaned
Game 3: 5/6/97:
DrawJava viewerNon-Java versionText version of commentaryPGN file Game log: full, cleaned
Game 4: 5/7/97:
Draw Java viewerNon-Java versionText version of commentaryPGN file Game log: full, cleaned
Game 5: 5/10/97:
DrawJava viewerNon-Java versionText version of commentaryPGN file Game log: full, cleaned
Game 6: 5/11/97:
Deep Blue winsJava viewerNon-Java versionText version of commentaryPGN file Game log: full, cleaned
The technology is there. Also if you used the highest settings for the computer in Chessmaster 3000 or 9000 you will find it hard to beat the computer.
I'm quite aware that computers are better than humans at chess and will continue to get stronger.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. In order to *prove* whether perfect play is a win for white or a draw, computers would have to evaluate the game at a much deeper level than would ever be needed to beat every human being who could ever exist. This is known as "solving" a game:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
Simpler games can be solved. Tic-tac-toe is relatively easily solved, and we know that perfect play is always a draw. Recently, checkers was solved after quite a bit of impressive computer work (and proven to be a draw with perfect play).
Just recently, checkers was solved.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719143517.htm
But to solve chess is many orders of magnitude beyond that. When you start talking about the number of positions or moves or games possible in chess, you are talking about numbers bigger than the number of particles in the known universe (literally). It is a matter of some debate as to whether computers could ever do it (some argue that limitations in the laws of physics would prevent computers from ever theoretically becoming fast enough to solve chess before the universe would come to an end).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess#Solving_chess
Didn't google just recently "solve chess" so I think if both sides played perfectly then it will be a draw, however, I also think White has a better chance of winning just because it starts out first.
ADK
Even if black doesn't move it still takes white 4 move to checkmate black, so unless black makes a mistake white still remain only 1 move ahead which is enough to check mate.
Extending that line of logic, if white doesn't move it takes black 4 moves to checkmate white and we're even again.
I could put forth a similar case that the shortest helpmate for white occurs on move 3, while the shortest helpmate for black occurs on move 2 and use that to argue that black has the advantage, but that argument is just as flawed as yours.
The fact of the matter is that black has to move, and even if he didn't, not moving isn't perfect play so it's not really relevant to the question that was posed.
I was simply demonstating that being one tempo ahead is not enough of advantage to win.