MeleiroZ thanks for your analysis. I agree such a poorly played game would not be possible in high level correspondence chess.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
It is acually a draw becase you have to make a mistake for your oppenet to win
But some chess engines can adapt look at Alpha Zero and Lela.
gullup you asked who does not make a mistake? Some high level correspondence players do not make a mistake.
ponz111 wrote:
PATRIOT Sorry but the strong checker players knew checkers was a draw before this was math proven. You may not like the fact that they knew checkers was a draw but never-the-less they did know it. There was a ton of evidence that checkers was a draw and that and their own experience was enough for them to know.
And, yes, I also know chess is a draw with best play and it does not matter that you say I don't know.
There are ways to prove things without using math proof. It may never be proven that chess is a draw using math but there is enough other proof that chess is a draw. If you do not accept the evidence that is fine but do not speak for me?
That's great. But it does nothing to prove chess is a draw. I know you have your deep held beliefs. But many deep held beliefs, based on a ton of evidence, have turned out to be proven false. Checkers is much simpler than chess. I dont know by what factor, but it's probably a lot.
It would be interesting to compare the percentage of white wins, on an elite level, vs the percentage of wins of whoever goes first in checkers. I dont think checkers is a good way to compare. Going first in chess is an advantage. That advantage goes away if white makes a mistake, but the advantage is there.
In checkers going first is much less of an advantage and often becomes a disadvantage. I would like to see the win rate of the two games from the side that goes first. It could be possible that the win rate of going first in checkers was much less, which was a reason many thought it was a draw.
PATRIOT There may be several reasons why a win rate goes up or down. We know the draw rate in chess goes higher and higher as the players get stronger and stronger [and thus maybe zero mistakes]
It does not matter if the win rate for White goes up and down a little, One reason is that some chess engines are compelled to play certain dubious openings in a chess match. For example in a recent chess match both sides were to play one game with this dubious opening: 1. e4 d5?! 2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qd6?! So there were two games with two wins.
What really matters is chess at the highest level which is often correspondence chess at the highest levels. With chess at the highest levels you will find the win rate is zero.
As for checkers there were m,any reasons the top players knew checkers was a draw. [not just the one you suggested]
ponz111 wrote:
PATRIOT There may be several reasons why a win rate goes up or down. We know the draw rate in chess goes higher and higher as the players get stronger and stronger [and thus maybe zero mistakes]
It does not matter if the win rate for White goes up and down a little, One reason is that some chess engines are compelled to play certain dubious openings in a chess match. For example in a recent chess match both sides were to play one game with this dubious opening: 1. e4 d5?! 2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qd6?! So there were two games with two wins.
What really matters is chess at the highest level which is often correspondence chess at the highest levels. With chess at the highest levels you will find the win rate is zero.
As for checkers there were m,any reasons the top players knew checkers was a draw. [not just the one you suggested]
I have not seen where the win rate is zero. I realize most high level games are draws. But I haven't seen where no games are won or lost. I suspect the reason there are so many draws is because that's what they play for. They dont play to win, and risk losing.
That's why I'm curious about the first move advantage of chess vs. checkers. In chess its a noticeable advantage. In checkers, it appears to be less of an advantage. So is it possible that if the advantage were less in checkers (and often a disadvantage) that could be a reason people thought checkers was a draw?
PATRIOT Look at the recent correspondence tournament which consisted of nothing but current and former world champions. I think there were 11 players and thus 11 times 10 or 110 games were played and there was a 11 player tie for first place as all 110 games were drawn.
And believe me they try very hard to win [except maybe when they have Black]. Correspondence players are very competitive and want to win.
However while they are fierce competitors--they are also realists and just try and play the best moves every move. World Champions are always fierce competitors who try to win.
They know how to play for a win and Not risk losing. [many top correspondence players know this]
And as I mentioned before --the possible one reason you gave why you thought the top checker players knew checkers was a draw--that is just one possible reason out of many.
You do not seem to realize that the strongest chess players have many reasons why they know chess is a draw and the same was true for checker players.
Aug 5, 2020
0
#3152
ponz111 wrote:
ZouDynatsy To answer your question. Chess is NOT a guaranteed draw for the average player or even the average GM.
Chess is only a draw with best play for both sides. It is quite obvious that in 98% of over-the-board games the players are not able to do "best play" So over-the-board players have a lot of chess play left.
However in correspondence chess at the highest levels--this is a form of chess where some players can [with the aid of computers and other resources] play chess with no errors or "best play". This is why you have strong correspondence chess players go for years without a single loss. This is also why at some future date the very best players will no longer play correspondence chess.
exactly???
If "Chess is only a draw with best play for both sides." there would be no point in playing
Aug 5, 2020
0
#3153
JamesLeung escribió:
Stockfish thinks this is a win though... So I don't trust it much...
Plus stockfish loses chess games to Alphazero and Leela(other chess engines)
Stockfish is neck on neck with Lc0 and modern day Stockfish mauls Stockfish 8 (the version which played A0).
Aug 5, 2020
0
#3154
lfPatriotGames escribió:
ponz111 wrote:
PATRIOT Sorry but the strong checker players knew checkers was a draw before this was math proven. You may not like the fact that they knew checkers was a draw but never-the-less they did know it. There was a ton of evidence that checkers was a draw and that and their own experience was enough for them to know.
And, yes, I also know chess is a draw with best play and it does not matter that you say I don't know.
There are ways to prove things without using math proof. It may never be proven that chess is a draw using math but there is enough other proof that chess is a draw. If you do not accept the evidence that is fine but do not speak for me?
That's great. But it does nothing to prove chess is a draw. I know you have your deep held beliefs. But many deep held beliefs, based on a ton of evidence, have turned out to be proven false. Checkers is much simpler than chess. I dont know by what factor, but it's probably a lot.
It would be interesting to compare the percentage of white wins, on an elite level, vs the percentage of wins of whoever goes first in checkers. I dont think checkers is a good way to compare. Going first in chess is an advantage. That advantage goes away if white makes a mistake, but the advantage is there.
In checkers going first is much less of an advantage and often becomes a disadvantage. I would like to see the win rate of the two games from the side that goes first. It could be possible that the win rate of going first in checkers was much less, which was a reason many thought it was a draw.
IIRC it's said checkers has about the square root of positions compared to chess.
ZouDyunasty Sure there is a point in playing chess for 99% of the players as they do not play perfect chess;
Prometheus. It has already been addressed many times that humans have only played a very small percentage of all possible games. This is because most possible positions--the great majority of such positions are irrelevant because there is such a disparity in such positions that a strong chess player could glance at such a position and know mistakes have been made. Any strong player can look at this position and know White is winning. Also any strong player can look at the position and know Black played badly and made mistakes.
Aug 5, 2020
0
#3157
ponz111 escribió:
Prometheus. It has already been addressed many times that humans have only played a very small percentage of all possible games. This is because most possible positions--the great majority of such positions are irrelevant because there is such a disparity in such positions that a strong chess player could glance at such a position and know mistakes have been made. Any strong player can look at this position and know White is winning. Also any strong player can look at the position and know Black played badly and made mistakes.
True, now we need to know the proportion of such positions to drawn ones.
Prometheus Some such positions are winning for White and some are winning for Black and some are drawn. Why do you think we need to know the proportions of each?
Aug 5, 2020
0
#3159
ponz111 escribió:
Prometheus Some such positions are winning for White and some are winning for Black and some are drawn. Why do you think we need to know the proportions of each?
Because of what you said?
i cant see the board @meleiroZ