True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

Sort:
Alltheusernamestaken

HolographWars escribió:

SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:

Chess is technically a win for White, by advanced number theory. The first player has a strategy that will assure a win for that side.

Ok, I'll bite. What advanced number theory are you referring to?

ZFC

Chess players are generally fairly good at math and can work whether the poster is full of ...himself.

 

Please explain which axioms of set theory you think apply that prove your claim.

Every zero-sum game means that White has a winning strategy that will always win with best play. Since White starts with +.1 or so, that means that White can win.

this is stupid, really stupid. You can't win with a +0.1 advantage

SmyslovFan
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:

Chess is technically a win for White, by advanced number theory. The first player has a strategy that will assure a win for that side.

Ok, I'll bite. What advanced number theory are you referring to?

ZFC

Chess players are generally fairly good at math and can work whether the poster is full of ...himself.

 

Please explain which axioms of set theory you think apply that prove your claim.

Every zero-sum game means that White has a winning strategy that will always win with best play. Since White starts with +.1 or so, that means that White can win.

Your argument fails at the very start. 

Tic-tac-toe is a zero-sum game. And yet, there is a forced draw every time. The theorem you misquote states that every zero-sum game that isn't a draw must be winning for one side or the other.  

HolographWars
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:

Chess is technically a win for White, by advanced number theory. The first player has a strategy that will assure a win for that side.

Ok, I'll bite. What advanced number theory are you referring to?

ZFC

Chess players are generally fairly good at math and can work whether the poster is full of ...himself.

 

Please explain which axioms of set theory you think apply that prove your claim.

Every zero-sum game means that White has a winning strategy that will always win with best play. Since White starts with +.1 or so, that means that White can win.

Your argument fails at the very start. 

Tic-tac-toe is a zero-sum game. And yet, there is a forced draw every time. The theorem you misquote states that every zero-sum game that isn't a draw must be winning for one side or the other.  

Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-I6u-AxMg&t=637s

SmyslovFan
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:

Chess is technically a win for White, by advanced number theory. The first player has a strategy that will assure a win for that side.

Ok, I'll bite. What advanced number theory are you referring to?

ZFC

Chess players are generally fairly good at math and can work whether the poster is full of ...himself.

 

Please explain which axioms of set theory you think apply that prove your claim.

Every zero-sum game means that White has a winning strategy that will always win with best play. Since White starts with +.1 or so, that means that White can win.

Your argument fails at the very start. 

Tic-tac-toe is a zero-sum game. And yet, there is a forced draw every time. The theorem you misquote states that every zero-sum game that isn't a draw must be winning for one side or the other.  

Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN-I6u-AxMg&t=637s

The video states in minute 1:06 that they are discussing games that exclude ties. They consider chess to be one such game, but we know that's not true, don't we? The author wants to discuss a chess variant, "infinite chess", which may or may not allow for draws. 

Decide what game you are talking about.

ponz111

Holo guy are you putting us on? Or do you really believe what you post?

HolographWars

Uh I believe that draws are disgraceful, so I exclude them (literally).

Scarlet_Evans
HolographWars wrote:

Uh I believe that draws are disgraceful, so I exclude them (literally).

So if you reach a dead draw in OTB game, you resign, because it would be disgraceful to end the game in a draw?

ponz111

nervous.png

darkunorthodox88

the consensus that its a draw borders on mathematical conjecture. Everyone is convinced its true as nothing has ever proved otherwise or even close, but we simply arent capable of formally proving it beyond any shred of doubt.

HolographWars
Scarlet_Evans wrote:
HolographWars wrote:

Uh I believe that draws are disgraceful, so I exclude them (literally).

So if you reach a dead draw in OTB game, you resign, because it would be disgraceful to end the game in a draw?

I criticize my opponent.

AutisticCath
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
HolographWars wrote:

Chess is technically a win for White, by advanced number theory. The first player has a strategy that will assure a win for that side.

Ok, I'll bite. What advanced number theory are you referring to?

ZFC

Chess players are generally fairly good at math and can work whether the poster is full of ...himself.

 

Please explain which axioms of set theory you think apply that prove your claim.

I'm horrible at math. Math is for more analytically gifted people than I. But chess players are of all varieties. Analytical skills help but intuitive skills also help. Both are more established in naturally intellectual people.

Daniel1115

It's pretty clear that it's a draw, but it's very hard to rid oneself of all mistakes. RE: computer chess championship where 3200+ engines lose

ponz111

Daniel, I think you are correct.

Loveliermanx1

False

ponz111

Love What do you think is false and why do you think this?

HolographWars

Who cares?

WSama

Hi, I'm @WSama, and some of you may know me. I've been running an experiment here on chess.com called the Blogadook, and you're invited. Some of you might wonder why I'm doing this, and the simple answer is 'chess science'. I assure you that this is not a prank of any sorts, so please participate with the intention of contributing or educating yourself. Thank you.

https://www.chess.com/blog/WSama/the-principle-series-piece-development

ponz111

The answer to the main question of this forum is that it is obviously true that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.  However proving this with math has not been done.

DavidEricAshby

Ponz, I agree that chess is a draw with perfect play by both sides, and I agree that your "proof" is good enough, if not a mathematical certainty.

It's possible that as chess engines become better and better in our lifetime that they will reach a maximum ELO where it's no longer possible to play much better any more and that all the games between such highly rated AIs will end with draws.

Wicked_Mickey

are there any games where boths players are 100% accurate or does one player always make a mistake?