No point in regretting the past, except to learn from it.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
daveborn wrote:
It seems that modern computers might be indicating, not proving, that chess could be a win for white. Most people have assumed that it is a draw, but co.punters show that it is possible that best play produces a win by slowly improving on the initial advantage of moving first until you have a won position.
White to move...isnt this a winning position for white ?...yet cannot convert it to a point ?
also if we look at Kn+Kn+K vs K the horsey side is up a theoretical 6 whopping points !...and cannot convert...sad. and 6 points isnt enough of a winning position to muster a Vee ?...see ?
Those situations you described are a material advantage for white, not a position advantage. The opening position is a position advantage for white, not a material one. Ultimately reaching a KNN v K endgame (or KN v K or KB v K etc) doesn't result in a win because it doesn't utilize the position advantage and turn it into a winning material advantage. Whites forced win from the opening position doesn't lead to any of the material advantages that don't win.
Yes, those positions Lola describes (forced or not) are not wins. But the opening positions is a forced win. So the opening positions that could force a KNN v K ending is not a forced win. So that line of play (just like the trillions of others) aren't forced wins.
Optimissed wrote:
Ah, but I know you still like to get practice in respect of arguing lost causes, like playing on in a lost position and you win. Remember I thought you must be a barrister but I got it with my second guess?
You have a good memory.
But you can't win a lost position. A lost position is checkmate, the position after a resignation or ran out of time. Wining a lost position isn't possible. It would be like a round square or married bachelor. That being said, chess is still a forced win for white. Any position that results in a non winning material advantage isn't the solution to chess.
I read once that 4x4 chess is solved and is a win for black.
Apr 17, 2022
0
#8307
The closest thing we have to perfect chess today is Alpha Zero vs. Alpha Zero. And it was a draw.
dont forget e/o. score four (connect four) is solvable too 
(luvvv that game !). my 2nd fav is chutes & ladders. cant stand monopoly. like life.
these games are knocking as i feed from the muse a y-day. cant open the door cuz my middle skool locked me out. lol !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnzRhAy62cI
...and thx for da trigger pulpy...luvya !
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Ah, but I know you still like to get practice in respect of arguing lost causes, like playing on in a lost position and you win. Remember I thought you must be a barrister but I got it with my second guess?
You have a good memory.
But you can't win a lost position. A lost position is checkmate, the position after a resignation or ran out of time. Wining a lost position isn't possible. It would be like a round square or married bachelor. That being said, chess is still a forced win for white. Any position that results in a non winning material advantage isn't the solution to chess.
I have a reasonable memory for trivia and as I mentioned, I believed that I may have worked out that you're someone I heard of about 15 years or so ago. However, I'm completely open to being told that's impossible. You left just enough minimal descriptions of things, scattered around. Unless it was a false trail!
OK though, I accept your argument about the lost position. Can we call it a losing position?
Yes. You have a much better grasp of the English language than I do. So maybe you could offer your opinion on that. I always thought lost was the past tense of lose or losing. I don't mean the "lost" as in you can't figure out where to go, like lost in the woods. Because even people who don't know what to do or where to go sometimes end up winning.
I mean lost as in lost the game or competition. I thought a losing position was one where someone has a really bad position or down a whole bunch of pieces. I thought it meant with even mediocre play the winning side will win. The game is still in progress so it can't be lost. So why do you think people say lost when (in my opinion) it's actually losing?
Apr 18, 2022
0
#8310
In my experience in the US chess players say a position is "lost" when it is clear that one player has an advantage sufficient to win comfortably. Of course poor play can turn a "won" position into a draw or even a loss. It partly depends on the strength of the "winning" player. If I can see a clear and obvious path to victory for my opponent I will resign earlier vs an IM than I would against a B-class player.
mpaetz wrote:
In my experience in the US chess players say a position is "lost" when it is clear that one player has an advantage sufficient to win comfortably. Of course poor play can turn a "won" position into a draw or even a loss. It partly depends on the strength of the "winning" player. If I can see a clear and obvious path to victory for my opponent I will resign earlier vs an IM than I would against a B-class player.
Then why don't they just say losing instead of lost? In the dictionary it says past and past participle of lose. It also says (of a game or contest) in which defeat has been sustained.
If winning a lost game is possible, then I suppose literally anything is possible.
Apr 18, 2022
0
#8312
Slang and colloquialisms don't follow proper rules of grammar. It's just the way people talk
mpaetz wrote:
Slang and colloquialisms don't follow proper rules of grammar. It's just the way people talk
That seems to be what it is.
To me it would be like being a pawn up and say "I've won". Past tense of win.
There is a difference between a game and a position.
You can draw, win, or lose a game.
A position can be a draw, a win, or a loss, meaning that if a game continues from that position and both sides play without error, then that is the outcome.
Yes, chess is a draw with best play from both sides.
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
In my experience in the US chess players say a position is "lost" when it is clear that one player has an advantage sufficient to win comfortably. Of course poor play can turn a "won" position into a draw or even a loss. It partly depends on the strength of the "winning" player. If I can see a clear and obvious path to victory for my opponent I will resign earlier vs an IM than I would against a B-class player.
Then why don't they just say losing instead of lost? In the dictionary it says past and past participle of lose. It also says (of a game or contest) in which defeat has been sustained.
If winning a lost game is possible, then I suppose literally anything is possible.
Innate arrogance that goes with the belief that chess players are the greatest intellects of all time?
That could be.
I'm a chess player, but definitely not a great intellect. I think you might be though.
I think your ability to assess people, and their thought processes is impressive. But I don't think that translates into whether or not chess is a draw. People playing chess is primitive compared to the actual solution to chess.
So what I mean by that it chess is a forced win for white, but I feel lucky to know you and appreciate your contributions on this and other topics as well.
#9641
"People playing chess is primitive compared to the actual solution to chess. "
++ In ICCF correspondence play the ICCF grandmasters and their engines at 5 days/move come close to perfect play. 99% of the ICCF WC draws are ideal games with optimal moves i.e. perfect play.
Here is an example:
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
tygxc wrote:
#9641
"People playing chess is primitive compared to the actual solution to chess. "
++ In ICCF correspondence play the ICCF grandmasters and their engines at 5 days/move come close to perfect play. 99% of the ICCF WC draws are ideal games with optimal moves i.e. perfect play.
Here is an example:
Yes. And 200 years from now they will look back and say that's the best we could do. Because it IS the best we can do, for now. The forced win for white isn't something computers (or people) can possibly find right now.
"perfect play" is something what will be debated for many, many decades to come.
New to chess but I feel like it means white played a little worse. If white has the advantage by color then you can't just say it disappeared. That advantage is worth something. Therefore, white did not play perfect. Why? White lost the advantage.
#9643
"The forced win for white isn't something computers (or people) can possibly find right now."
++ There is no sign at all that a forced win for white or even for black would exist.
On the contrary: the stronger the players and the longer the time control, the more draws.
#9645
"That advantage is worth something."
++ White is up a tempo.
From gambits we know that 3 tempi are worth 1 pawn.
You need an advantage of 1 pawn to win a game.
The plan is to queen the pawn and checkmate the king with it.
The advantage of 1 tempo is not enough to win a game.
Black can even lose a 2nd tempo and still be OK
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1768345
It seems that modern computers might be indicating, not proving, that chess could be a win for white. Most people have assumed that it is a draw, but co.punters show that it is possible that best play produces a win by slowly improving on the initial advantage of moving first until you have a won position.