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

Sort:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola

(good luck with that as I suspect it is infinite)

n/t is physically infinite. now...build on that.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

BF (after DB made it) probably promoted 960 cuz he thought chess wuzza draw. not sure. but if so ?...boy was he wrong !

Ubik42
Naw Fischer promoted it because he hated all the memorization of opening lines. And also because he called it “FischerRandom”!

I am sure it would be a better game for top level chess.
Ubik42
that was an interesting endgame!

Oddly you could remove your queen and put the black king further away and it would still be a draw.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

ppl say ray gordon solved it.

Elroch

Queen endings are _hard_, but an analysis board should help.

Ubik42
My dad and I resolved this long ago. We played a game where we both made pretty good moves and it was a draw, so draw with perfect play on both sides.

I mean, he hung a rook at one point but I missed it, so draw.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola

lol !!...thx UB42...made my day !!

heres one from ur friends from UB40...member ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXt56MB-3vc

 

Ubik42
I liked UB40, but my name is actually from a philip K Dick book
mpaetz

     I'm also a big Phillip K Dick fan. Read all his books. Met him a couple of times--I didn't realize the guy in the classical section of the record store was a sci-fi writer at the time but recognized his picture on the back of a book a couple of years later. I also bumped into him leaving my drug dealer's place once when I was going in. 

     His favorite bar, George & Walt's--is still open on College Ave in North Oakland a couple of miles from the UC Berkeley campus.

GMsocoolom
Ubik42 wrote:
I liked UB40, but my name is actually from a philip K Dick book

nice

Developer0
True, it’s actually very interesting when you think about it. Chess is really a game that the person who makes the least mistakes wins. Someone cannot win without the other person marking a mistake.
blueemu
Dugite295 wrote:

... I suspect that you may as well ask what is the highest prime number; though that also is conjecture...

It has been known for more than 2,300 years that there is no "highest prime number"... they form an infinite set.

This is not conjecture. It can be proven quite easily. It doesn't even require any particular mathematical ability to understand the proof.

iplayNaked0o

interesting

GMsocoolom

cool

zborg

If you watch GMs play game in 3/0 on this site, you will witness not just a few examples of AMAZING DRAWS, with as many as 70-80 moves, and all in just 3/0.  

Food for thought?  Or you could just listen to @Ponz111  Ha!

dpnorman

I'm not going to read almost 500 pages worth of forum posts so if anyone can hit me up with a TLDR on what we're actually debating here (given that there's no mystery what the answer to OP's question is) that would be much appreciated happy.png

blueemu

I would also argue that there isn't room in the known universe to store and organize the partial results of the search for a strong solution.

Even if there were some way to encode the information so that each bit of data would require no more than a single atom to store it (and no such method is available) this still places an irreducible limit on the mass of the storage required.

It should be remembered that the amount of mass that can be gathered "in one spot" is not limitless, owing to the formation of black holes when the local density exceeds a certain limit. It is important to note that this limit goes up as the square of the radius, while the amount of mass that might be contained in that volume goes up as the cube of the radius.

So the more massive an object (or a collection of data) is, the more spread-out it must be (and therefore, the lower its average density) in order to avoid catastrophic collapse into a black hole. An object the mass of the Earth must be al least one centimeter across to avoid catastrophic collapse. An object the mass of the Sun must be roughly one kilometer across to avoid the same fate.

Once we start dealing with collections of data that mass many times more than a galaxy, the data itself must be spread out over several times the volume of a galaxy simply to avoid a catastrophic collapse under its own self-gravitation. This imposes the obvious million-year light-speed lags to any read/write operations on the data.

In short, the amount of raw data involved in the strong solution to the chess problem is so great that there is neither any place to store it (without triggering an implosion) nor enough time in the lifetime of the universe to read / write and analyze it.

WoodyTBeagle

Isn't this just a tautology?  Like, of course with perfect play on both sides it's a draw, but rather that in a lot chess there isn't perfect play but rather degrees of inaccuracies and the difference is whether you can exploit those inaccuracies for a win or not.  

blueemu
WoodyTBeagle wrote:

Isn't this just a tautology?  Like, of course with perfect play on both sides it's a draw, but rather that in a lot chess there isn't perfect play but rather degrees of inaccuracies and the difference is whether you can exploit those inaccuracies for a win or not.  

It seems obvious to us that with best play chess is a draw, but several of the posters in this thread dispute that idea.