SusanShadrak It is true that nobody is perfect but there are checkers players and tic tac toe players and chess players who often play a perfect game.
All 3 games end in a draw with perfect play by both sides.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Aug 27, 2020
0
#3523
SujanShadrak wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Incidentally, I'm 100% sure that chess is a draw. I wonder how you work out that you're exactly 99.9999% sure of something? There's a chap called R. Dawkins who thinks along those lines and, surely, he isn't all that bright?
How, for that matter, do you work out that you're exactly 100% sure of anything. You need to have a defined measure in either case. If you just say you're sure that's different.
Is the R. Dawkins you're talking about R. Dawkins FRS?
Fellows of the Royal Society are usually exceptionally bright compared with the Hoi Polloi. If you find him not all that bright you must be amazingly intelligent!
Perhaps that's why I can never follow your reasoning.
lol
remember guys no ones perfect.
one's
Aug 27, 2020
0
#3525
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
igotmange wrote:
good luck finding two players that can play perfect moves.
i would surmise ur a player ?...and u have summa most perfect moves on the shelines ? lol !
luvya tomkat !
i have played a few purrrrrrfect moves, Goddess. 
Aug 28, 2020
0
#3526
Has anyone really played a game with every move perfect?? Those are the rare brilliant moves 1 after another for the whole game
Aug 28, 2020
0
#3527
I beleive that a computer analysis has been done and it was found that white has a 0.2 of a pawn advantage over black. This being said, I have found that some people play white better than black and some people play black better than white. And since 0.2 is not enough of an advantage to win a game, every chess game is a horse race.
zixin to play a perfect game per the definition of "perfect" we are using for this forum, means to play without any error which would change the end result of the game.
So it is not necessary or even possible to play all brilliant moves to play perfectly. Will give you an example:: In this position White does not have to play any brilliant moves to win.
Aug 28, 2020
0
#3530
if 2 perfect players kept on playing the best moves in the hope of winning, then would they not know how to avoid steering the game into a draw at all costs ?
igotmange. It is true that most players try to win. And it is also true that strongest players try to make the best moves
. But as shown in hundreds [and maybe thousands] of games when the best moves are played by both sides--the game will always end in a draw. Neither player can steer the game to a win if their opponent does not make a mistake.
Definitely agree with a Draw being both players playing equally as good OR bad haha
Aug 28, 2020
0
#3533
Optimissed wrote:
Another factor at play is the love-affair many have with computers .... particularly computers programmed to play chess. I think that people see the sometimes complex and rather amazing tactics which are possible and which may appear to overthrow the widespread acceptance that winning tactics are impossible in a strategically balanced game. Computers are best at tactics and people arguing for the possibility of a win from move one have forgotten the meaning of strategic balance. Maybe they see it only in terms of static balance and believe that a new dynamism is overthrowing the past. This is incorrect. It doesn't alter the principles involved, which remain the same.
Some good points here, IMO.
True. End of discussion. Now that this has been settled, can we please move onto another subject. Thank you.
Aug 28, 2020
0
#3535
ponz111 wrote:
igotmange. It is true that most players try to win. And it is also true that strongest players try to make the best moves
. But as shown in hundreds [and maybe thousands] of games when the best moves are played by both sides--the game will always end in a draw. Neither player can steer the game to a win if their opponent does not make a mistake.
by best moves you mean engine analysis ? have you ever seen Carlsen come up with a better best move on chessbomb ? he does it regularly. the conditioning is ... no mistake leads to a draw, but better and better engines keep getting designed, pity they can’t play with intuition, like Tal did.
false
igotmange. No! I don't mean best move via engine analysis. I simply mean playing with out an error which would change the end result of the game.
Am quite aware that engines can make mistakes and sometimes [this is rare] humans can play better in certain positions. About 4 years ago a grand master posted 2 positions on chess.com where the best engines were getting it wrong. My age was 75 at the time but I solved both positions in a matter of a few minutes. Because I could think outside the box and the best chess engines could not.
The very best in chess is not via engine analysis. The best chess [without errors] is played at the highest levels of correspondence chess where the very tops players use engines and data bases and their utok and they have several methods to ensure they play without error. Heck, some openings have been analyzed to a draw such as the Ruy Lopez.
In a recent tournament which consisted of only past and present World Champions--I think it was 9 players--every single game ended in a draw and thus there was a 9 way tie for first place even though none of the 9 winners had even won one game.
Some of the very best correspondence players have gone for years without losing one game.
Because of this situation--Correspondence Chess at the highest levels will eventually die out. [this is my opinion or guess] But at the "lower" levels correspondence chess will survive. [my guess]
Ponzie ? i just looked at ur avatar and briefly mistook it 4a QR code. then i googled up QR.
so. heres a puzzle. if theres 2^250 atoms in the universe (trust me i counted them) wut size does the QR code need to be to be more combinatorial ?...and u need only use black or white baby squares.
...e.g. 8x8 matrix or 10x10....s/t like that. the winner gets a cookie from me. yee !
Ghostess lady My "avatar" guess you mean my icon [am confused with the terms.] It is just a chess position, from one of my Ponziani Opening. White to play--find the best move??
Heck, I don't even know what is a 4a QR code??
Hope someone can answer your question?
Incidentally, I'm 100% sure that chess is a draw. I wonder how you work out that you're exactly 99.9999% sure of something? There's a chap called R. Dawkins who thinks along those lines and, surely, he isn't all that bright?
How, for that matter, do you work out that you're exactly 100% sure of anything. You need to have a defined measure in either case. If you just say you're sure that's different.
Is the R. Dawkins you're talking about R. Dawkins FRS?
Fellows of the Royal Society are usually exceptionally bright compared with the Hoi Polloi. If you find him not all that bright you must be amazingly intelligent!
Perhaps that's why I can never follow your reasoning.
lol
remember guys no ones perfect.