So white always wins with perfect accuracy?
We don't have computers with perfect accuracy yet so how do we know that?
mY bRaIn HuRtS
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Aug 5, 2020
0
#3162
ponz111 wrote:
ZouDyunasty Sure there is a point in playing chess for 99% of the players as they do not play perfect chess;
I'll make the obvious correction. 100% of players do not play perfect chess. If anyone, man or machine, played perfect chess this discussion would not exist.
Pawn You are absolutely wrong. White DOES NOT always overtake Black with perfect accuracy. Where did you get that idea?? If Black also plays without error--the game will be a draw.
PATRIOT You are incorrect. In correspondence chess we do have a few players who play with out error.
One example would be this recent tournament of world champions which ended with all 11 players tied for first p[ace as they all played perfect chess.
Another example would be the strong correspondence player who has posted here and has not lost a game in 11 years. And there are other players who now play perfect chess without error.
This discussion partially exists because you and others are unaware of the facts.
Pawn you do not understand some things about strong computers. computer10 is NOT the strongest computer and it makes mistakes.
Pawn I do not even know what computer 10 is? I was thinking maybe Stockfish 10 but you are not now referring to it as Stockfish 10? It seems like a rather low level computer? And it makes mistakes.
And your statement that mistakes balance mistakes is not generally true for the average player. and certainly not true for strong computers.
But a discussion of low level computers which do not play well is not very relevant to our discussion here?
Aug 6, 2020
0
#3169
ponz111 wrote:
Pawn I do not even know what computer 10 is? I was thinking maybe Stockfish 10 but you are not now referring to it as Stockfish 10? It seems like a rather low level computer? And it makes mistakes.
And your statement that mistakes balance mistakes is not generally true for the average player. and certainly not true for strong computers.
But a discussion of low level computers which do not play well is not very relevant to our discussion here?
Computer Level 10 is almost certainly the computer interface on this site set at level 10. I think it's SF8.
SF8 has elo rating 3400. The problem is that it's given only enough computer resources to play Bullet.
ponz111 wrote:
PATRIOT You are incorrect. In correspondence chess we do have a few players who play with out error.
One example would be this recent tournament of world champions which ended with all 11 players tied for first p[ace as they all played perfect chess.
Another example would be the strong correspondence player who has posted here and has not lost a game in 11 years. And there are other players who now play perfect chess without error.
This discussion partially exists because you and others are unaware of the facts.
No. There are no people who play perfect chess. Just because a game, or games, end in a draw or win does not mean it was played perfectly. This goes back to the comment about how best play has not been discovered yet. It might someday, but today is not that day.
MARattigan Thank you for your information!
True
MeleiroZ wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
No. There are no people who play perfect chess. Just because a game, or games, end in a draw or win does not mean it was played perfectly. This goes back to the comment about how best play has not been discovered yet. It might someday, but today is not that day.
In Correspondence Chess there are a lot of people playing perfect chess. Impossible to improve it in thousands of variations and impossible to avoid the draw. I know what I am talking about. Humans and Computers makes no miracles, some positions simply cannot be improved.
I studied hundreds of recent high-level Correspondence Chess. Some variations have one single win in 10 years and hundreds of high level games. I don't lose a high level CC game for about 16 years. In the last 2 years my percentage of draws raised to about 98% (and growing). I try everything I can, but almost all known openings are impossible to defeat if black don't make many mistakes (and they make fewer and fewer mistakes).
Chess is a draw. I don't need any complicated formula to say that, like I don't need to mathematically proof that C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am belongs to C music family.
Chess is a draw, but this is not important for the common player, except for Correspondence Chess, obviously slowly dying. The CC community knows this perfectly. A recent tournament ended with 1 win in 225 games. The combination Human+Computer is more and more powerful. The result is what you see.
No.
In over-the-board chess at levels below GM there are many wins as players make mistakes.
As the strength of the players increases--there are more and more draws.
Finally we get to the highest form of chess and that is correspondence chess at high levels.
Then we get situations as described by MeleiroZ where a lot of people are playing perfect chess
and it is very obvious that chess is a draw when players do not make mistakes.
Yes, there are a lot of over-the-board players who have not experienced today's correspondence chess at the highest levels. And some of these players will stubbornly refuse to admit chess is a draw.
The strongest players either at correspondence chess or over-the-board chess--know chess is a draw.
And yes, correspondence chess at the highest levels will eventually die out because the high level players cannot win against the strongest competition.
I was a strong correspondence player before chess engines were strong enough to make a difference but quit correspondence chess when chess engines were used. I enjoyed winning and putting my abilities against others. But that era is gone.
MeleiroZ wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
MeleiroZ wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
No. There are no people who play perfect chess. Just because a game, or games, end in a draw or win does not mean it was played perfectly. This goes back to the comment about how best play has not been discovered yet. It might someday, but today is not that day.
In Correspondence Chess there are a lot of people playing perfect chess. Impossible to improve it in thousands of variations and impossible to avoid the draw. I know what I am talking about. Humans and Computers makes no miracles, some positions simply cannot be improved.
I studied hundreds of recent high-level Correspondence Chess. Some variations have one single win in 10 years and hundreds of high level games. I don't lose a high level CC game for about 16 years. In the last 2 years my percentage of draws raised to about 98% (and growing). I try everything I can, but almost all known openings are impossible to defeat if black don't make many mistakes (and they make fewer and fewer mistakes).
Chess is a draw. I don't need any complicated formula to say that, like I don't need to mathematically proof that C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am belongs to C music family.
Chess is a draw, but this is not important for the common player, except for Correspondence Chess, obviously slowly dying. The CC community knows this perfectly. A recent tournament ended with 1 win in 225 games. The combination Human+Computer is more and more powerful. The result is what you see.
No.
"No" is a good answer. Something like resigning a game.
It's also the correct answer. Something like asking if chess is solved.
A lot of bad chess is still played in Correspondence chess- an engine and a strong player is not enough, you also need good cooperation.
Right now I am playing in the ICCF Lockdown Perliminaries (I have GM title in LSS, but to date I had just a couple of games against a very weak opponent in ICCF and I'm playing as untitled with 1800 provisional rating), and in all likelihood, I will win the first four games that I will finish (already won two of them). The opponents played all kind of nonsense you can imagine, including an obvious blunder of a whole piece.
phren When you get to the highest levels of ICCF correspondence chess you will have tough opposition.
ZouDyunasty Sure there is a point in playing chess for 99% of the players as they do not play perfect chess;
Bruh do you not get my point???
If people mastered chess so much and played perfectly there would be no point in playing chess
The result would always be a draw
One person wins because of an innacuracy