The best chess player possible would always play the same (drawish) openings, so he'd never lose. Even if he drew every game he ever played it would fufill chess theory, which says the game should be drawn. I believe the most drawish openings are the English as white and probably the Bogo-Indian/Grunfeld/Petroff (or is it Petrov?) as black. Or am I wrong, and there are more drawish opening repitioures than this?
Originally posted by bobbob1056thLet's hope you never become a GM.
The best chess player possible would always play the same (drawish) openings, so he'd never lose. Even if he drew every game he ever played it would fufill chess theory, which says the game should be drawn. I believe the most drawish openings are the English as white and probably the Bogo-Indian/Grunfeld/Petroff (or is it Petrov?) as black. Or am I wrong, and there are more drawish opening repitioures than this?
Originally posted by bobbob1056thIt is unknown whether chess is drawn, won or lost with perfect play. To find out you would have to calculate every possible position. The mind bogglingly high number of possible positions means this isn't likely to be completed anytime soon.
The best chess player possible would always play the same (drawish) openings, so he'd never lose. Even if he drew every game he ever played it would fufill chess theory, which says the game should be drawn. I believe the most drawish openings are the English as white and probably the Bogo-Indian/Grunfeld/Petroff (or is it Petrov?) as black. Or am I wrong, and there are more drawish opening repitioures than this?
Not likely? I think it's impossible, there are more than an undecillion positions. Also, it is not true that every single position needs to be analyzed to find the correct result. That's like saying the same thing about tic-tac-toe, but after analyzing only a few positions in tic-tac-toe you can easily see the game is drawn. Only the strongest moves need to be analyzed. Also it is theory that chess is a draw, and it seems obvious. And it is very unlikely that I'll become a GM so you have nothing to worry about 🙂 (even if I did, I would not play those detestable openings, I'd play openings that'd actually give my opponent more of a chance to mess up so I could actually win. Anyways, does this mean you don't like players who play those openings because they tend to be more drawish than others?)
one more thing. in terms of your rating you would not neccesarily be a good chess player because it would be easier for lower rated players to draw against you.
Originally posted by bobbob1056thThere's nothing wrong with drawing but I think the general chess population feels that drawing at move 11 is just silly. And I usually lose instead of draw=/
Not likely? I think it's impossible, there are more than an undecillion positions. Also, it is not true that every single position needs to be analyzed to find the correct result. That's like saying the same thing about tic-tac-toe, but after analyzing only a few positions in tic-tac-toe you can easily see the game is drawn. Only the strongest move ...[text shortened]... y be a good chess player because it would be easier for lower rated players to draw against you.
Technically, you could say that the best chess player would play not the moves that would guarantee a draw, but the strongest (most challenging to meet) moves. for example white can probably force a draw after 1. f3 but just because of that I wouldn't call someone who plays 1. f3 as their only opening the best chess player in the world, even if they never lost a game.
Originally posted by bobbob1056ththe best player in the world would get a maximum of wins, a minimum of draws and almost no losses.
The best chess player possible would always play the same (drawish) openings, so he'd never lose. Even if he drew every game he ever played it would fufill chess theory, which says the game should be drawn. I believe the most drawish openings are the English as white and probably the Bogo-Indian/Grunfeld/Petroff (or is it Petrov?) as black. Or am I wrong, and there are more drawish opening repitioures than this?
even if the idealistic perfect game is a draw ...
the "best player" would know that other players are pathetic ... and would organise a massive barrage of unbelievably indecipherable tricks and traps that ensured a win for our hero almost every time.
Originally posted by XanthosNZAnd it never will be. I once worked out that there simply isn't enough time for mankind to "solve" chess...
To find out you would have to calculate every possible position. The mind bogglingly high number of possible positions means this isn't likely to be completed anytime soon.
Originally posted by BowmannThere is enough time to solve chess, and it wouldn't be nearly as difficult as one might think. In fact I predict chess will be solved within 100 years. In order to solve chess you don't have to analyze every possible position. I believe some openings have already been solved (they have been proven to be losing with best play (ie a variation of damiano's defence)). All you'd have to do is solve all the openings.
And it never will be. I once worked out that there simply isn't enough time for mankind to "solve" chess...
Actually, there are 25 million trillion trillion trillion legal postions.
I'd like to say first and foremost that this number equals 25 tredecillion (2.5*10^43). There are obviously not precisely that many legal positions (it would be extremely difficult to calculate it (maybe not for a computer, but I'm not sure. Bonus points for whoever can write a program in C that gets the exact amount of legal chess positions!)) I heard the number of legal positions was "over one decillion" but if what you said is true it would mean there are over 10 million times as many legal positions as my source said. You're probably right.
And if you don't believe me that all you have to do is find the strongest moves to a given position in order to solve it than consider this:
In this position white has three legal moves. Two of them lead to mate for black and one of them obviously leads to a mate for white. Using the logic that you have to analyze every single position that can possibly arise from a given position in order to solve it (determine the best moves from this point on and the correct result of the game) one would say the position is far too complex to even see the best move in this position (which is, obviously, a rather humerous thing to say) because there are easily 100 trillion+ positions that can result from the this original position.
Originally posted by bobbob1056th2.5*10^43 isn't correct. The most recent estimate is 10^10^50 which is much larger than I want to think about.
There is enough time to solve chess, and it wouldn't be nearly as difficult as one might think. In fact I predict chess will be solved within 100 years. In order to solve chess you don't have to analyze every possible position. I believe some openings have already been solved (they have been proven to be losing with best play (ie a variation of dami ...[text shortened]... re are over 10 million times as many legal positions as my source said. You're probably right.
The example you give proves nothing.
How about this one? What's the winning move? Can you prove it?
Perhaps you have heard of endgame tablebases? Basically a file with every position with certain pieces on the board linked together so a computer can instantly tell whether a position is won, drawn or lost. So how many pieces do you think they have managed this with so far? 4 pieces plus kings. Now the number of positions as pieces increase is exponential. With just two kings there are under 64*63 positions (not including duplicates thanks to symetry). Add a rook (on the side without the move) and there are almost 64*63*62 positions (again excluding symetry). So with teams working on these tablebases with supercomputers having managed 6 out of the 32 pieces how long do you think it will take to reach solving the starting position?