Bro if you see an analysis on chess.com, there is a cataegory of 'best' move and 'good' move , the one who plays best move wins everywhere.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
PatriotGames why do you insist on misquoting me?? This is not honest. Your most recent quote of me was bogus. And the quote before was bogus.
When your arguments fail just misquote the other person???
Of course if you set up a particular position there is often one best move which wins but not always.
Two or three years ago a GM gave a position with White to move. I solved it quickly when nobody else had a clue. There was only one "best move" and it led to a draw.
So the "best move" does not always lead to a win.
As Drm pointed inferior play(not taking a draw in drawn position) wins against petfect play. I understand your obvious take and respect it. Here is mine: no human is perfect and cannot play a perfect game. All human games are based on error. Winning is making the least game-losing errors.
Is bughouse a draw with perfect play?
(blink blink)
ponz111 wrote:
PatriotGames why do you insist on misquoting me?? This is not honest. Your most recent quote of me was bogus. And the quote before was bogus.
When your arguments fail just misquote the other person???
I'm not misquoting you. YOU said you believe perfect play ends in a draw. Actually you said more than that. You said you "know" it, and that it's obvious. I'm just pointing out that this is something you believe you know, and believe is obvious. Nobody can possibly know what perfect play is from the beginning of a chess game because it hasn't been done, at least yet.
It would be like me saying that I "know" what the average cost of a house will be in 80 years. I can believe it, but I cant know it because it hasn't happened yet. Even using your definition of perfect a move or game cant be perfect (from the beginning) because you haven't figured out if any of the resulting countless trillions of moves make a difference in the outcome of the game. Until you do that, you dont know if it's perfect.
To me, it's a lot more "obvious" that humans are very imperfect, and will never play a perfect game. And computers are probably in their infancy, so a thousand years from now they may play perfect or at least be a lot closer to solving chess. So even computers, I believe, are extremely imperfect and even the best ones probably make huge mistakes compared to what they may be capable of someday. I agree with Nwap, all human chess games are based on error. All of them. Error is not perfection. It makes no difference if the world champion believes chess is a draw with perfect play because he will never do it. When he draws, it's because he made about the same amount of mistakes as his opponent, not because both played perfectly.
Patriot you are defining a "perfect game" differently than I define it. You are also defining "perfect play" differently than I define it. To me a perfect game or perfect play simply means playing without an error.
An "error" would be a move which would change the theoretical outcome of a game if the other side played perfectly.
Here is an example Where White makes an error fairly quickly which will change the theoretical result of the game if Black respond correctly:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 and here White makes a move which GMs and super GMs have been playing for over a hundred years. White plays 4. Bb5? and should now LOSE if Black follows up correctly. This is also an example where a chess individual [me] knows enough about chess to refute a move which has been played at the highest levels for decades.
Our experience with checkers is an example where a not perfect human can play a perfect game. The strongest checker players had KNOWN for years that checkers was a draw even before checkers was math proved to be a draw. And these players had played huindreds of perfect games.
But it does not require to always be able to play a perfect game in chess or checkers in order to play a perfect game. Yes, the very strongest players will have a better chance to play a perfect game but even two low rated 1600 rated players have a math chance to play a perfect game--i.e. a game where neither side makes a move which would change the theoretical result of the game.
It is not true that all human chess games are bases on error. Maybe 99.99% of human chess games are based on error but since hundreds of billions [or more] of chess games have been played--this still leaves millions of perfect games which have been played. [based on my definition of a perfect game.]
It is also not true that if the World Champion believes chess is a draw with perfect play that he will never play a perfect game. A perfect game is a perfect game REGARDLESS of who plays it.
Also the World Champion does not believe that just because he draws that he has played a perfect game. You seem to have little understanding on how the best players think about chess.
You tried to make this same claim against me and misquoted what I believe. You do not really make a good case by misquoting. Also you have a fundamental misconception of what the strongest players believe and maybe that is why you tried to say something the World Champion believes which obviously he does not believe.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2411
ponz111 escribió:
It is complete bunk that a perfect game has never been played. Actually thousands of perfect games have been played.
"Perfect play" does not mean play to the best of your ability. Your ability to play varies from day to day and sometimes from hour to hour. "Perfect play" means not to make a mistake which would change the outcome of the game. There is even a chance that 2 experts will play a perfect game together.
You still haven't defined mistake.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2412
drmrboss escribió:
Stockfish had similar problem with perfect play( of course if position is simple, Stokfish can 100% correctly calculate like perfect player). Cos regular Stockfish knows similar positions leads to draw and doest not try anything to win ( in fact theoretically draw , you cant do anything). However, in 2018 May, programmers introduced imperfect evaluation to stockfish ( contempt 24). This way stockfish is virtually fooled with +0.24 evaluation without reason. So, stockfish think many draw positions are not 0.00 anymore but +0.24 and try to win a perfectly draw positions( that works against weaker players).
Surprisingly, that imperfect play( you can call best play as it is trying every possible chances to win) increased stockfish elo approximately +25.
This is an important point, however, a perfect player (ie it knows the game state of any legal position) can simply avoid playing moves that transform a draw to a loose so it'd not suffer from high contempt issues like Stockfish does.
What is "best play" is a subjective thing and will depend on your oponent and the time it has available.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2413
ponz111 escribió:
Patriot you are defining a "perfect game" differently than I define it. You are also defining "perfect play" differently than I define it. To me a perfect game or perfect play simply means playing without an error.
An "error" would be a move which would change the theoretical outcome of a game if the other side played perfectly.
Here is an example Where White makes an error fairly quickly which will change the theoretical result of the game if Black respond correctly:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d5 and here White makes a move which GMs and super GMs have been playing for over a hundred years. White plays 4. Bb5? and should now LOSE if Black follows up correctly. This is also an example where a chess individual [me] knows enough about chess to refute a move which has been played at the highest levels for decades.
Our experience with checkers is an example where a not perfect human can play a perfect game. The strongest checker players had KNOWN for years that checkers was a draw even before checkers was math proved to be a draw. And these players had played huindreds of perfect games.
But it does not require to always be able to play a perfect game in chess or checkers in order to play a perfect game. Yes, the very strongest players will have a better chance to play a perfect game but even two low rated 1600 rated players have a math chance to play a perfect game--i.e. a game where neither side makes a move which would change the theoretical result of the game.
It is not true that all human chess games are bases on error. Maybe 99.99% of human chess games are based on error but since hundreds of billions [or more] of chess games have been played--this still leaves millions of perfect games which have been played. [based on my definition of a perfect game.]
It is also not true that if the World Champion believes chess is a draw with perfect play that he will never play a perfect game. A perfect game is a perfect game REGARDLESS of who plays it.
Also the World Champion does not believe that just because he draws that he has played a perfect game. You seem to have little understanding on how the best players think about chess.
You tried to make this same claim against me and misquoted what I believe. You do not really make a good case by misquoting. Also you have a fundamental misconception of what the strongest players believe and maybe that is why you tried to say something the World Champion believes which obviously he does not believe.
Those are only beliefs, we can't know if a player (human or computer) made an error by changing the previous game state unless we know the game state of the previous and current position, hint hint, that tool doesn't exist unless you have 7 or less pieces.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2414
I would venture to say that it is unknown if white has a win at move one or whether best play will always result in a draw. The best that can be hoped for might be a statistical analysis from the very strongest engines.
Carwash, the best players disagree with you on this. Virtually all the GMs know that chess is a draw with best play.
Before checkers was math solved--virtually all the best players knew that checkers is a draw with best play.
There are several reasons why the very best players know that chess is a draw with best play.
When Magnus or any top player analyzes a game or an opening--he starts with the assumption that chess is a draw with best play. The stronger the player--the more likely he will know that chess is a draw with best play.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2416
None of them know, the believe so and so do I but there's a difference between knowing and believing.
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2417
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
None of them know, the believe so and so do I but there's a difference between knowing and believing.
With all things being equal. What result would you expect besides a draw?
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2418
IMBacon escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
None of them know, the believe so and so do I but there's a difference between knowing and believing.
With all things being equal. What result would you expect besides a draw?
Win for white or black?
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2419
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
IMBacon escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
None of them know, the believe so and so do I but there's a difference between knowing and believing.
With all things being equal. What result would you expect besides a draw?
Win for white or black?
How? If all things are equal?
Aug 20, 2019
0
#2420
IMBacon escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
IMBacon escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
None of them know, the believe so and so do I but there's a difference between knowing and believing.
With all things being equal. What result would you expect besides a draw?
Win for white or black?
How? If all things are equal?
But all things aren't equal...
If you meant chess then having to move first is a difference.
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake.
I would suggest that out of billions of chess games that one cannot find even one game which was won or lost without one of the players making a mistake. If anyone thinks they can find such a game please post it here.
yes