A thought I had about "perfect chess"

Originally posted by Varenka
Assume that the perfect game is a draw if White’s plays 1.d4 or 1.c4 (1.e4 loses to the Caro-Kann… wait and see). Now consider an opponent that is perfectly prepared for 1.d4 but not 1.c4, and another opponent that is vice versa. Here, the “ultimate player” would have to have knowledge of the opponent in order to maximise results. i.e. the tablebases alone are not enough.

I don't agree. Neither of both players can be regarded as a perfect opponent, if there are positions they can't cope.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Even if you could determine every possible position it would then be a matter of which positions are better... which is what we do now. Conclusion; there is no need to know every possible position.

Could you clarify your point?

Of course finding the best positions is the task. Where the best move (i.e. new position) is determined by the best worst-case scenario (i.e. after the opponent makes his best possible move). As long as a game can be finished in finite number of moves (hence the 50 move rule), the game will end in a won/drawn/lost position of which we know the value.

So there is a perfect game (resulting from perfect play by both players), but the perfect 'player' needs to be able to handle 'all' positions, not only the ones occuring in the perfect game.

Originally posted by tvochess
I don't agree. Neither of both players can be regarded as a perfect opponent, if there are positions they can't cope.

I also regarded them as imperfect opponents so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Originally posted by Varenka
I also regarded them as imperfect opponents so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

You said:

'Here, the “ultimate player” would have to have knowledge of the opponent in order to maximise results. i.e. the tablebases alone are not enough. '

Whereas according to me, the ultimate player should be able to handle any position, without regard/knowledge of the opponent. Unless you mean something different than 'perfect player'.

Originally posted by tvochess
Whereas according to me, the ultimate player should be able to handle any position, without regard/knowledge of the opponent. Unless you mean something different than 'perfect player'.

Your concept of the ultimate player may not take advantage of a player’s weaknesses and hence may draw instead of winning.

Originally posted by Varenka
Your concept of the ultimate player may not take advantage of a player’s weaknesses and hence may draw instead of winning.

Ok, now I see your point. You mean playing against weak (i.e. weaker than perfect) opponents? Indeed, awareness of opponent's weaknesses results in faster wins or can convert a loss/draw into a win.

But to me, this has little to do with 'perfect play'. I guess there is no doubt that a perfect player will always win against a less-than-perfect player. So there is not much to be discovered in that field. However, it 'could' indeed be taken into account for computers that play humans. It would make them more human-like, I think.