quadriple but there are ways to know if someone is winning sometime in the first 15 moves. chess engines is one of the ways.
Yes, average players [you must know almost all who post here are quite a bit above average] do make mistakes so they are losing or their opponent makes mistakes so he is losing by the 15th move.
So far many have said I am wrong but no one is willing to test my statement with me. It is easy to just say I am wrong.
It's easy to say you are right and make up stats too.
looking at a chess engine to see if someone is winning is downright dumb because you just reached the middle game and the tactics are just about to unfold and the only thing the engine can show you is how much play you have and not how much you will play.
for example after 1.e4 c5 black might have an advantage in the engine but that does not mean black is going to win for sure.
more than 50% of the time is a very dangerous assumption.
unless you are playing computer 1 easy it's hard to loose too much material before the 15th move.
send me message and we will work it out.
With best play from both sides it is a draw? No. There are three stages of chess play. The opening, the middle-game and the end-game. As I see it, the question only applies in the end-game stage. Best example are the computer tournaments. Computers are not commit.
I don't know why I've been reading this. This argument is clearly drawn by repetition.
No, I did not realize there were so many people not convinced chess is a draw with best play. Or people who would demand proof chess is draw.
So my mistake.
Many of us (myself included) agree with you that chess is almost certainly a draw, but take issue with saying that "chess is a draw" is a fact or is proven or is true.That's probably a matter of semantics though, as some people are more careful with their language or mean something much stricter by those terms.
There is a distinction between "chess is a draw" and "there is no forced mate for N+N+K vs K". One can be proven so that every logical point in the argument is absolutely indisputable, just as in a mathematical proof, and the other is something that we must rely on probabilitistic evidence for. There is no logical proof that can be given to show that "chess is drawn". There is lots of evidence that chess is drawn, all of which cause most people to conclude that it is probably drawn (or almost certainly drawn), but that's very different from saying that it's true (that is, is known to be true) or is proven or is a fact.
loek I did not say after 15 moves there is always one side or the other winning. I said there is usually one side or the other winning. This means more often than 50% of the time.
I am talking about the average game played by chess players.
In other words if you took a million games at random what I said would hold true. More than 500,000 one side or the other would have a winning position by the 15th move. [I did not say on the 15th move]
The main issue I have with this argument is that "winning" in this context is ambiguous. Your judgment of the position decides whether one side or the other is winning. People may differ on who they think is winning. You could use different definitions, such as majority rule or expert opinion like a grandmaster. In the end though the statistic only has relevance based on how you define winning. You seem to be defining it by your opinion of the position. So to water it down your point seems to be that 15 moves in to most games you have an opinion on which side is going to win. I don't think anyone is going to find this surprising for the most part.
Peren you are misquoting me. I never said it would just be my opinion to judge if a position is winning or losing. never said that all or even implied that.
"perfect play on both sides is impossible."
Symmetrical moves doesn't imply or establish perfect play. Just because white moves first, it is only at an advantage if black doesn't play a good countermove.
The analogy I brought up was that we are looking too close to the trees to see the forest. What you are doing is getting even closer and looking at only one game.
Think of it more like a decathlon or obstacle race. You might complete one event (one game), but you haven't finished the whole championship until you play as both black and white (2 games minimum).
Winning as white gets you half way there. You also have to win or lose playing the best as black. If 2 people do this, then it is a draw in the end.
Perfect play on both sides is impossible.
If someone comes first in a race no one else can ... they only go second through to last
If white plays perfect moves black can only play near perfect ones and hope white makes a mistake.
In cases like tal the opponent might not have made too many mistakes but aggresiveness wins the game for him.
What you say makes no sense.
let's say
I play "perfect moves" as white and win.
I play"best possible(what you are calling perfect)" moves as black and loose.Even if the score is tied at 1-1 white won both games and black lost both games.
so the score is white :2
black:0
If both players are threatening mate in one and white has to play first, white wins.You don't need to complete blacks move unlike the decathalon.
sorry but perfect play by both sides not only is possible but it has been done many times.
Also if you play perfect moves as Black you will not lose.[so lets not say that or assume that]
ponz111 has said that he is happy to accept the judgment of a strong engine that the position is +- or -+ before move 16, so the argument that it relies on his judgment is false.
The issue seems to come down mainly to the distribution of games played. If "most games" played are blitz or bullet between low-ranked players, then it's a pretty good bet that most games are +- or -+ at some point before move 15, but this is totally unsurprising to me.
ponz111, are you willing to make some more specific predictions, like most rated games at slow time controls for D-class players are won...? Would you agree on that for A-class players? If not, which class is the highest you believe that would be true for?
People do not like to hear new ideas. Especially in chess if it is something they never considered and on the face of it does not seem plausible.
Thus I get many misquoting me or not understanding what I was saying.
Then I ask several to test what I was saying with me and they back out.
Is there anyone who is willing to actually test my statement rather than just saying I am wrong. [this was tested in Ponziani Power vote chess and found to be true but more testing is needed]
sapien
Isaid the average game. That would be way below
Class A. It would maybe less than a 1000 rating.
However in vote chess with players rated class A Expert and master up to 2450 what I said held true.
Class D it would hold true. I would guess for bullet chess almost all games have one side or the other winning by the 15th move.
I would say if your rounded up all the games in the world including fast and slow chess and put them in a big pile and randomly took out 1,000,000 games more than 500,000 of the would have one side or another with a winning advantage by the 15th move.
Of all then hundreds of millions chess players in the world the average would be below class D but we can take class D for testing.
Sapient are you interested in testing????
sorry but perfect play by both sides not only is possible but it has been done many times.
That means chess has been solved and every player has to play only those move.
What is more likely is one of the players made slight positional mistakes but the opponent wasn't good enough to take advantage of it
sapien
Isaid the average game. That would be way below
Class A. It would maybe less than a 1000 rating.
However in vote chess with players rated class A Expert and master up to 2450 what I said held true.
Class D it would hold true. I would guess for bullet chess almost all games have one side or the other winning by the 15th move.
I would say if your rounded up all the games in the world including fast and slow chess and put them in a big pile and randomly took out 1,000,000 games more than 500,000 of the would have one side or another with a winning advantage by the 15th move.
Of all then hundreds of millions chess players in the world the average would be below class D but we can take class D for testing.
Sapient are you interested in testing????
I think it's probably true also of class D players (slow rated games), so that wouldn't be very surprising either. I think the people who were surprised didn't realize the full meaning of "most games". They were thinking something like "most slow games between strong players", which is why it was so surprising.
I might test on my games a little later, but I'm probably a class B player, and I don't have many recent slow games to draw from (I improved a lot over the last year or so but haven't played many games, and no OTB rated games).
sorry but perfect play by both sides not only is possible but it has been done many times.
That means chess has been solved and every player has to play only those move.
What is more likely is one of the players made slight positional mistakes but the opponent wasn't good enough to take advantage of it
But if you consider that there are only three possible evaluations for a move (+-, = and -+), then there is no difference between trading everything to K+B vs K or, say, some wild line of the Sicilian that would be drawn "with best play". (I hope you will grant me that it's a reasonable possibility that some Sicilian lines are drawn with best play, never mind whether it's actually the case.)
To play real chess, it's not enough to know one line of "perfect play", you need to know them all.
ponz111: I have only 4 slow games in 2013, and I checked all of them using houdini3 in chessbase through Black's 15 move. Here is the most extreme evaluation of each game after we left book:
game 1: +/= 0.65
game 2: +/- 1.25
game 3: =/+ -0.31
game 4: = (black quickly equalized and it was = after that through move 15)
So in my small sample, game 2 was the closest to winning, but even that wasn't a clear win before move 16. These were games at 45 45 time control on ICC between me (about 1700 ICC standard) and players whose ICC standard ratings were high 1500s in one case and mid-1700s in the other three cases (all ICC ratings).
loek I did not say after 15 moves there is always one side or the other winning. I said there is usually one side or the other winning. This means more often than 50% of the time.
I am talking about the average game played by chess players.
In other words if you took a million games at random what I said would hold true. More than 500,000 one side or the other would have a winning position by the 15th move. [I did not say on the 15th move]