True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

I DO accept that the best we can do is probably a draw.

probably ?...probably ??...wheres ur conviction all of a sudden ?

and here i had ur backside fonz. wont forget.

1. Observation: I’ve seen only opinionated titled players.
2. Conclusion: all titled players are opinionated.
3. 🦔

well dont be a goldfish outta the bowl. flopping around and all that. i mean show something ?

...backbone ?

and quit playing those dum logic games w/ me nikki. u could hardly even get past empirical.

Aww. I like dum logic games.

1. You can be logical without being empirical.
2. You can be empirical without being logical.
3. 🦔

🦔 🦔 🦔 🥳 

Maybe Marks is correct?  I beat two GMs with the black pieces and also set a USA record with the black pieces!? 

So I watched something instructive and very on-point as far as this thread is concerned.

There is a video on YouTube called “Leela Chess Zero Makes Mind Blowing Sacrifice,” and yes, it’s the most mind blowing thing I’ve seen in chess.

On move 8 Leela makes a long term positional sacrifice and is down a bishop seemingly for nothing. Stockfish thinks it is winning for about the next twenty moves, but then slowly slowly slowly its evaluation goes from positive to negative. As far as Stockfish knew, it was Leela who blundered, and no human or combination of human/computer would ever make this move because it’s so obviously losing.

As far as Stockfish was concerned, it made 0 errors, 0 mistakes, and all best moves, but it lost. And this wasn’t some weak version of Stockfish, this happened a few months ago.

So the point is that no matter how deep you go, you can always go deeper. You never ever know if you played the best response.

Go watch the video. It’s the most amazing game I think I’ve ever seen.

I wonder if that counts as a game where no mistakes are made, yet one side loses. I know if there was a mistake I would never be able to find it. 

Yeah. The point is that if there is a forced win, and that’s a big if, it would probably happen from an early position where black is forced to choose between accepting or rejecting a sacrifice, and either way it’s losing.

Again, not saying anything certain here, but it’s a plausible scenario.

I never thought of it that way. Even though unlikely, the very first move is winning because there is no way to avoid that situation described here. 

You'd like to think so...it makes your ego-centric worldview that much easier to think that people are intimidated and insecure because they can't handle your "I took a quiz on the web 53 times and finally got a..." 169 IQ .

I have you blocked because you're a pseudo-intellectual dillweed, and I don't want you posting on my threads.  End of story.  Years of posting have borne that conclusion out, and while, like chess being a forced draw, there is not 100% certainty of you not being able to post anything of redeemable value, it's not really time I want to waste.  Somebody else can do that.

Don't feel special or anything, there are a metric ton of people here just like you, and I have blocked a number of them.

not from white

 

 

Internet IQ tests top out at 145

@mcchess - your argument is tautological. It lost because it blundered because you can only lose if you blunder.

The position arose from a very very very heavily analyzed opening (Ruy López Archangel) and all moves were theory. It’s one of Magnus’ favorites.

Black was forced to choose between not accepting the sacrifice, which was losing, and accepting the sacrifice, which it turns out was losing.

By most definitions, this would be zugzwang on move 8. You would have to say that the entire line is a blunder.

It’s plausible, not likely, but plausible, that white could force black into any number of these zugzwangs regardless of what black plays.

Substitute not the best moves for blunder, and everything stays the same. Maybe there are no drawing best moves in that line of the archangel. It’s impossible to know for certain. These are, after all, the two best active engines on the planet.

PATRIOT and Nikki Stockfish made mistakes leading up to the interesting position where Leela made the interesting piece sacrifice on move 8.  Yes, it was a very nice game by Leela but not at all a perfect game by both sides.,

I had seen a similar motive  by Alpha Zero. [again against a version of Stockfish] You would not see the best correspondence players make those mistakes. 

The sacrifice on move 8 was a very nice move but the game itself is easy to understand.   

Nikki  while those two may be the best chess engines on the planet--  They are not as strong as the very best correspondence players. 

 

Do you really thank that anyone in correspondence chess would’ve made that piece sacrifice on move 8? It’s counterintuitive in the extreme. Stockfish said it was a straight up losing move on Leela’s part.

But the larger point was that it seems that at move 8, Stockfish was lost. Leela *forced* a choice between losing moves.

I’m saying it’s plausible that white could engineer such choices for all possible black openings. Remember, the Archangel isn’t some dubious Hillbilly opening, either. You can’t just say, “duh, everyone knows the Dutch is terrible.”

Ideally, yes.  I can read Quora, too.  But go ahead and Google "online IQ test 180" and you'll immediately find...

https://www.free-iqtest.net/

(which not only goes to 180, you can get a web page result to tell you have a 180 IQ without even taking the test ...)

This amp goes to 11!

People that think they have really high IQ tend to believe the highest IQ result they can find, and it only takes one result to latch onto...whether a "legit" IQ site (IQ is not really a legit measure anymore, but still), or just an IQ test cut and pasted on some messageboard.

P.S. If you Google for a list of people with the highest IQs, it will show you Garry Kasparov in spite of his 160+ IQ being debunked long ago, and by Garry Kasparov himself.