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.
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.
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.
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?
Uv seen'm. they look like this...
True. End of discussion. Now that this has been settled, can we please move onto another subject. Thank you.
Of course you can. Don't mention it.
shuchita Yes, sometimes a draw is just luck as players under master level make many mistakes and who knows who will make the worse or last mistake[s]?
As for players at master level up to World Champion--there are also going to be mistakes made.
There is chess being played at higher levels than that. The stronger the chess players the less mistakes are made.
At the highest form of chess there can be very little number of mistakes. Some players at the highest levels of correspondence chess go for years without losing a game as they don't make mistakes.
shuchita Yes, sometimes a draw is just luck as players under master level make many mistakes and who knows who will make the worse or last mistake[s]?
As for players at master level up to World Champion--there are also going to be mistakes made.
There is chess being played at higher levels than that. The stronger the chess players the less mistakes are made.
At the highest form of chess there can be very little number of mistakes. Some players at the highest levels of correspondence chess go for years without losing a game as they don't make mistakes.
They make mistakes. You just dont know it yet. Take the best correspondence games or players from right now and put them up against the best ones 200 years from now and you will see all the mistakes that are made. Of course it's possible that games of chess have been played with no mistakes. But nobody knows for sure if it's happened.
So you're arguing that chess is a draw given optimum moves but that no-one makes them? @IfPatriotGames
So you're arguing that chess is a draw given optimum moves but that no-one makes them? @IfPatriotGames
You must be reading someone elses comment. I was commenting on Ponz's idea that people don't make mistakes (or computer for that matter). I was saying that as computers (and people) get better what used to be thought of as good or perfect is found to have flaws. That's why both players and computers are better now than they were 50 or 100 years ago. We learn from mistakes of the past.
There are probably games from 200 years ago that nobody could have possibly improved on. Now, those games are found to be full of mistakes. So what Ponz thinks of today as mistake free will be found 200 years from now to have all kinds of mistakes.
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.
Then came NN's and showed computers weren't only grossly good at tactics...
For me it's true