There are ways of knowing if a perfect game has ever been played without solving chess.
Claims can be made and proved by piling up enough evidence. If enough good evidence is made then that will prove a claim. I have given part of the evidence. Just the evidence i have given is enough to prove a perfect game has been played.
However there is still evidence i have not yet given here.
A perfect game today, will tomorrow, be a game with a few inferior moves in terms of cp loss, according to whatever the latest engines and GM understanding happens to be. It's happened countless times already: a game or line thought perfectly sound refuted - or having improvements offered - by recent advances.
We've only scratched the surface on the black and white jungle. We're still in the bronze age. Alpha-Zero - a chess AI - played moves any grandmaster and the strongest Stockfish setup would call "losing". And it was called losing. And had a human player taken over at that point, the human player would've lost. But it was winning. And Alpha-Zero won. Stockfish analyzed that itself was winning, and many GMs would've believed Stockfish was winning, but Stockfish was actually dead lost.
Think of what a chess engine or chess AI might be capable of in the twenty second century. Such a notion as "many perfect games have been played" is simply something at which to look at, point, and laugh.
I already partially answered How do i go about knowing? I do this by piling up a whole lot of good evidence--enough to prove the claim.
There are ways of knowing if a perfect game has ever been played such as? without solving chess.
Claims can be made and proved by piling up enough evidence. such as? If enough good evidence is made then that will prove a claim. I have given part of the evidence. No, you didn’t. You posted games and claimed they were perfect, without explaining how you know they are perfect. Just the evidence i have given is enough to prove a perfect game has been played.
However there is still evidence i have not yet given here.
So....
HHHHHOOOOOOWWWWWW do you know?
At this point I think you’re just trolling.
A perfect game today, will tomorrow, be a game with a few inferior moves in terms of cp loss, according to whatever the latest engines and GM understanding happens to be. It's happened countless times already: a game or line thought perfectly sound refuted - or having improvements offered - by recent advances. sorry but because some games have been incorrectly analyzed do not mean there have been no perfect games played.
and cp loss has nothing to do with "a perfect game" A perfect game is a game without error by either side. This is the definition we have been using. Every game will have centipawns varying for both sides.
We've only scratched the surface on the black and white jungle. We're still in the bronze age. Alpha-Zero - a chess AI - played moves any grandmaster and the strongest Stockfish setup would call "losing". But it was winning. you are wrong with this statement i have not seen one game or one move where A1 has played a move which any grandmaster and/or the strongest Stockfish would call "losing" Where do you get such an erroneous statement??
Think of what a chess engine or chess AI might be capable of in the twenty second century. Such a notion as "many perfect games have been played" is simply something at which to look at, point, and laugh.
sorry your last sentence turned blue. You can laugh all you want but actually as chess engines get stronger and as if A1 gets better there has been and will be more and more draws which help to prove that chess is a draw when there are no errors by either side. and this is some proof that many perfect chess games have already been played. When chess engines get stronger in the future there will be more perfect games played.
Toldya.
For some people, chess understanding doesn't matter. For these people, we cannot know whether a game was played without error until all possible games have been played.
The problem with that logic is that even then, we won't be able to tell which games were best.
Of course, there is a way to tell whether moves are good or bad. And therefore, there is a way to tell whether games are good or bad. Analytical errors do creep in, especially in longer games. But there are plenty of short draws where neither side risked anything and neither side made any mistakes.
Toldya.
For some people, chess understanding doesn't matter. For these people, we cannot know whether a game was played without error until all possible games have been played.
The problem with that logic is that even then, we won't be able to tell which games were best.
Of course, there is a way to tell whether moves are good or bad. And therefore, there is a way to tell whether games are good or bad. Analytical errors do creep in, especially in longer games. But there are plenty of short draws where neither side risked anything and neither side made any mistakes.
No, you cannot know whether a game was played without error without chess being solved. It doesn’t matter whether all the moves have been played or not.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong. How do you go about determining if no mistakes have been made that current players and engines cannot identify?
How did i know the two games i posted were games with out error?
1. from my own chess experience of more than 65 years of playing chess.
2. from my analysis
3. because i know the game of chess is a draw when no errors have been made by either side.
4. because the GMs know the game of chess is a draw when no errors have been made by either side.
5. because billions of chess games have been played AND NOT ONE GAME HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE EITHER SIDE HAS WON WITHOUT AN ERROR FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
6. Because in the vast majority of postions there are SEVERAL moves which would not change the theoretical outcome of the game. [this is very important] very important....
7. Because as players and chess engines become stronger more and more games are ending in draws. [this is also important]
8. Because i know that just because some games have been misanlyzed does not mean that other games cannot be perfect. [there have been billions of games played]
9. Because i know that GMs know a heck of a lot more about chess than the average player below expert level.
All of this is some of my evidence.
I have sufficient evidence to make my two claims. [some of the evidence some people might now understand]
I could very easily be wrong. Just as one cannot know that many perfect games have been played, I cannot know that they haven't been played. I apologize if I've come across as an arrogant know-it-all as I swear that's not my intention. I will admit that it's very frustrating trying to point out what is, in my mind at least, extremely simple.
It just stands to reason, in my opinion, that if one doesn't know the end from the beginning, he cannot deem the variables that lay between as "perfect", seeing as how his own understanding is itself imperfect.
Sufficient is not the same as perfect in the way I judge it. A fifty move game may very well consist of all engine moves in which the minimum centipawn per ply was lost, but a stronger engine, one hundred years from now, will almost certainly find,, at the very least, a move in which even fewer centipawn is lost.
This is, again, my thoughts on the matter and not every one may agree. To them, a game without any blunders, mistakes, or decisive inaccuracies is deemed perfect. I deem such a game sufficient, though not necessarily perfect in an absolute sense.
Also I co-authored a book about the Ponziani Opening. It is a good opening for anyone up to expert [and some masters play it as i did]
However at very high levels it is not considered as strong as the Ruy Lopez.
But i have analyzed this "not so good opening" for about 40 years in about all reasonable variations.
I have never found a sequence of moves by Black which would force a win for Black. I have found many lines by Black which would result in an equal game.
This 40 years of analysis on one particular opening is one more piece of evidence that the game of chess is a draw...
Losing, you are bringing in a word "sufficient" which is ambiguous regarding the playing of a chess game.
I am guessing you mean "adequate in regards to making no mistakes" ?
if this is what you mean then you are describing a perfect game.
@USAP,
Even if a game has a few minor errors that result in minimal centipawn loss, the game will still result in a draw. The draw margin in chess is quite large. We know this. So, even without "perfect" play, we know that chess is a draw, and there have been many games played with no significant (result changing) error.
How did i know the two games i posted were games with out error?
1. from my own chess experience of more than 65 years of playing chess.
2. from my analysis
3. because i know the game of chess is a draw when no errors have been made by either side.
4. because the GMs know the game of chess is a draw when no errors have been made by either side.
5. because billions of chess games have been played AND NOT ONE GAME HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE EITHER SIDE HAS WON WITHOUT AN ERROR FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
6. Because in the vast majority of postions there are SEVERAL moves which would not change the theoretical outcome of the game. [this is very important] very important....
7. Because as players and chess engines become stronger more and more games are ending in draws. [this is also important]
8. Because i know that just because some games have been misanlyzed does not mean that other games cannot be perfect. [there have been billions of games played]
9. Because i know that GMs know a heck of a lot more about chess than the average player below expert level.
All of this is some of my evidence.
I have sufficient evidence to make my two claims. [some of the evidence some people might now understand]
1. Great. What about your experience told you those games had no mistakes that current players and engines cannot find?
2. Great. Give us the specifics of this so-called analysis of yours.
3-5. Irrelevant to whether or not you are able to determine if games are played without errors that are unidentifiable by players and current engines.
6. The only way to know this if the position is simplified to the point that you can see all possible variations all the way through. Early on in the game, you can’t possibly know that.
7-9. Irrelevant to whether or not you are able to determine if games are played without errors that are unidentifiable by players and current engines.
@USAP,
Even if a game has a few minor errors that result in minimal centipawn loss, the game will still result in a draw. The draw margin in chess is quite large. We know this. So, even without "perfect" play, we know that chess is a draw, and there have been many games played with no significant (result changing) error.
I’m not debating whether or not a perfectly played game ends in a draw, I think that is likely the case.
I’m debating ponz111’s erroneous claim that thousands of games have been played with no mistakes. I’m debating his erroneous claim he could possibly know this.
I could very easily be wrong. Just as one cannot know that many perfect games have been played, I cannot know that they haven't been played. I apologize if I've come across as an arrogant know-it-all as I swear that's not my intention. I will admit that it's very frustrating trying to point out what is, in my mind at least, extremely simple.
It just stands to reason, in my opinion, that if one doesn't know the end from the beginning,the end from the beginning of what?
he cannot deem the variables that lay between as "perfect", seeing as how his own understanding is itself imperfect. actually he can if the game is short enough.
Sufficient is not the same as perfect in the way I judge it. A fifty move game may very well consist of all engine moves in which the minimum centipawn per ply was lost, but a stronger engine, one hundred years from now, will almost certainly find,, at the very least, a move in which even fewer centipawn is lost.the varying centipedes have nothing to do with a perfect game. The very starting position has varying centipedes. White has more centipedes to start. But White does not have enough of an advantage in centipedes to win or to change the result away from a draw. It is well known that there are many drawn games where the centipedes are much in favor for one side. i myself once drew a game where i had a lone king vs my opponent who had a bishop and pawn and king with both the bishop and pawn protected.
Also i recently solved a chess position [which the best chess engines could not solve] where i forced a draw even though i was down 6 centipedes at the end.
This is, again, my thoughts on the matter and not every one may agree. To them, a game without any blunders, mistakes, or decisive inaccuracies is deemed perfect. I deem such a game sufficient, though not necessarily perfect in an absolute sense.
USARMY you can claim my points 1-9 are not relevant if you want. You just cannot see why they are relevant.
USARMY you can claim my points 1-9 are not relevant if you want. You just cannot see why they are relevant.
You’re claiming to be able to know whether or not mistakes are played that current players and engines cannot find.
Asked how you are able to know this, “from my experience.“ That is a non-answer.
Prosecutor: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.“
Defense attorney: “How do you know this? What evidence do you have?“
Prosecutor: “I know this from my 65 years of working as a district attorney.“
Wow! That settles it. Such compelling evidence the jury must find a defendant guilty.
The problem with your senario is that my 65 years of chess experience is only one of several factors leading me to the conclusion that chess is a draw with perfect play and that perfect games have already been played.
Read Wipedia about Circumstantial Evidence.
If enough circumstantial evidence piles up then a claim can be said at true.
The problem with your senario is that my 65 years of chess experience is only one of several factors leading me to the conclusion that chess is a draw with perfect play and that perfect games have already been played.
Read Wipedia about Circumstantial Evidence.
If enough circumstantial evidence piles up then a claim can be said at true.
Great. Then let’s take these one at a time.
“2. from my analysis”
Elaborate on this analysis. How did you specifically go about conducting this analysis, and how did it determined that no mistakes were made that neither you, nor any other player, nor any current engine can identify?
ponz111: “It does not require that the game of chess be solved before a perfect game can be played”
BZZZZT! Strawman argument alert!
I didn’t say that it did. I said it requires the game of chess to be solved to KNOW if a perfect game has ever been played.
i do not know if you said that or not as i am replying to more than one person but someone said that.
And I totally disagree that it requires the game of chess to be solved to KNOW if a perfect game has ever been played [and i have given some of my evidence on this]
Wonderful! 👍
HOW do you go about knowing?