@Optimissed Analogy: "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
Why did you bring up gravity then? Did you think we were talking about gravity? Honestly, you might be that dumb.
Sorry but I don't get the impression I'm talking to someone who is clever!
I get the impression I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what an analogy is.
@GWTR If something is not a guaranteed draw and not a guaranteed non-draw, then there isn't a guaranteed outcome... indeterminable... again proving chess players are the dumbest people on the planet.
You are confusing the postulate that the outcome of a game with "best play" can be determined in advance with the sentiment that the outcome of a game with "best play" is always a draw. The former is a premise whilst the latter is a conclusion. I hold neither of these positions.
There is no forced outcome even with best play, and that has been proven to my satisfaction. I can understand why your opinion may differ from mine ... and that is OK with me.
There is no forced outcome even with best play
That's not even possible in perfect information games that don't have chance...
Yes, with best play from both sides, a draw is the logical result. Chess would be a very poor game if there was a way to force a win without the opponent having done something to get into a losing position.
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or make a chess bot
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or you could accept that Grandmasters are reasonably decent players who generally pursue the most promising lines, and who only lose when they take the risks necessary to pose novel problems for their opponents. When they want to draw, it is extremely difficult to prevent.
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or you could accept that Grandmasters are reasonably decent players who generally pursue the most promising lines, and who only lose when they take the risks necessary to pose novel problems for their opponents. When they want to draw, it is extremely difficult to prevent.
Haha ya totally, that's why they always draw against computers. Or do they lose with knight odds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc
Theoretically all games are a draw in the starting position, and if the best moves are played they should be a draw in the end position.
Sometimes it depends on what the best moves could be and how superior or inferior they might be.
Lets put it this way: If nobody makes a mistake and both players make the best move it should be a draw.
The person who makes the first mistake has a chance to bounce back, the person that makes the last mistake loses the game.
If you don't remember anything else from what I said just remember you can only lose in chess because of your mistakes.(Even Brilliancies are made because of an opponents mistakes, so if there is no mistake there is no brilliancy, to simply put it.) Due to this the goal is to make minimal mistakes as well as make the most best moves tot make the best positions to suite a better game.
Due to this it proves the claim that Chess is a draw when both sides have best play from both sides.
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or you could accept that Grandmasters are reasonably decent players who generally pursue the most promising lines, and who only lose when they take the risks necessary to pose novel problems for their opponents. When they want to draw, it is extremely difficult to prevent.
What happens when a grandmaster wants to draw against something 600 points better than they are? If by extremely difficult you mean pretty easy, then yes.
That's why I think using current grandmasters and computers as some sort of reference for this question is pointless. Perfectly played chess could be a draw, but nobody will ever know for a very, very long time.
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or you could accept that Grandmasters are reasonably decent players who generally pursue the most promising lines, and who only lose when they take the risks necessary to pose novel problems for their opponents. When they want to draw, it is extremely difficult to prevent.
Haha ya totally, that's why they always draw against computers. Or do they lose with knight odds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu-pSaN62lc
Are you implying the top computers always draw against other top computers? That is incorrect.. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2
There is no forced draw with best play. That has been determined based on best available evidence.
There is no forced win with best play. That has been determined based on best available evidence..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero#Chess_2
The only "way" around the best evidence - and which many of you are employing - is to define "best play" as both sides always making a move that cannot possibly lead to a draw. Circular logic.
Yes, with best play from both sides, a draw is the logical result. Chess would be a very poor game if there was a way to force a win without the opponent having done something to get into a losing position.
Your reasoning necessitates that tic-tac-toe is NOT "a very poor game."
Do you still play it? If not, why not?
There is no forced draw with best play. That has been determined based on best available evidence.
There is no forced win with best play. That has been determined based on best available evidence.
Wrong. One has to exist.
There is no forced draw with best play. That has been determined based on best available evidence.
There is no forced win with best play. That has been determined based on best available evidence.
Wrong. One has to exist.
Why?
Is chess so complex that neither a forced win or a forced draw will ever be discovered?
@GWTR
Okay, let's assume there's a forced win for white. This means that every turn for white, if white plays a correct move (there could be more than one), a move that doesn't give black a chance to not lose, white will win.
If somewhere down the line, there isn't a correct move, a move that would give white a forced win, one or all of the previous moves weren't correct to begin with. And if there isn't a chain of correct moves to the end of the game, there isn't a forced win.
Except, since there's not a forced win for white, that mean black has the opportunity to force a win/draw.
Now let's assume there's a forced win for black. So, if black plays correct moves, black will win. If there isn't a correct move to play (black can't force a win) then the previous correct moves weren't correct to begin with. And if there isn't a chain of correct moves to the end of the game, black doesn't have a forced win, and instead has a forced draw.
There is absolutely no way to know the answer to this question. You would literally have to play out all possible variations out to the end of the game.
That would take EONS, time none of us has.
Or you could accept that Grandmasters are reasonably decent players who generally pursue the most promising lines, and who only lose when they take the risks necessary to pose novel problems for their opponents. When they want to draw, it is extremely difficult to prevent.
What happens when a grandmaster wants to draw against something 600 points better than they are? If by extremely difficult you mean pretty easy, then yes.
That's why I think using current grandmasters and computers as some sort of reference for this question is pointless. Perfectly played chess could be a draw, but nobody will ever know for a very, very long time.
Nothing. It doesn’t happen. There is no one 600 Elo higher than the weakest grandmaster.
@Optimissed Analogy: "a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
Why did you bring up gravity then? Did you think we were talking about gravity? Honestly, you might be that dumb.