Only Chess Forum

1. 22 Jun '10 01:24 / 1 edit
And I mean this in the literal sense. When I was a kid I figured out how to play a perfect game of ticktacktoe. You will literally either lose or draw against me. If I'm X's I start in any corner. As O's, if you choose any square besides the center you lose.

Relatively recently the game of checkers was literally mastered by a computer, perfect play.

In chess words cannot begin to describe how many possible variations and variables can be spawned from each and every move, and once you get passed the opening the number of legal moves you can make are many.

Cracking the "code" would be mind boggling, I mean completely epic. But is it impossible? Set aside the limits of the human mind and today's technology, is it literally unsolvable?
2. 22 Jun '10 01:53 / 1 edit
Impossible I'd say.

I've yet to count them all so for now have lifted these figures from;

But they appear to give confirmation links.

There are over 9 million different positions that can arise after 3 moves.
More than 288 Billion after 4 moves.

Up to move 40 it's something like more atoms in the known universe.

There are 318,979,564,000 different ways to play the first 4 moves.

A number I cannot forget is 5949. That is the longest number of moves a
game of chess can legally last using the current 50 move rule.

The most perfect game of chess has to be Fools Mate.

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh5 mate.

I cannot find fault with any of Black's moves.
3. 22 Jun '10 01:59
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And I mean this in the literal sense. When I was a kid I figured out how to play a perfect game of ticktacktoe. You will literally either lose or draw against me. If I'm X's I start in any corner. As O's, if you choose any square besides the center you lose.

Relatively recently the game of checkers was literally mastered by a computer, perfect ...[text shortened]... de the limits of the human mind and today's technology, is it literally unsolvable?
Yeah I mastered tic tac toe in Math class and I've played for money! like you said, start in the corner, and always defend in the middle!

I don't think there will ever be such a thing as one and only one perfect game of chess, because many openings exist, and there's no way to know which one is the best of the best. In fact, no difference exist between the best openings because they all lead to a draw vs best play anyways. Plus, as the black side, there are probably many roads to a draw, and all draws are equal; you can't really quantify them.

On the other hand, I think it would be possible to figure out the ''best play'' in specific openings. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Najdorf has been analyzed to a draw already! Since the Najdorf might be the best opening for black, would that mean we already do have the perfect game of chess? If someone knows the analysis on the Najdorf I'd love to see ''the game'' posted here!

But yeah, until chess is really dead and they start quantifying draws or something, I don't think it's possible because of the thousands of different flawless games that lead to a draw.
4. 22 Jun '10 02:00 / 3 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Impossible I'd say.

I've yet to count them all so for now have lifted these figures from;

But they appear to give confirmation links.

There are over 9 million different positions that can arise after 3 moves.
More than 288 Billion after 4 moves.

Up to move 40 it's somethin ...[text shortened]... be Fools Mate.

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh5 mate.

I cannot find fault with any of Black's moves.
- e5 is debatable.

- The number of possible chess games is an argument that comes up everytime in response to this topic, however, almost ALL of the ''possible'' chess games arn't plausible, and wouldn't be considered for the perfect game.
5. 22 Jun '10 02:13
Hi Max

I do not have the time at the moment to show you why
1....e5 is the best answer to 1.f3. (it's theory just accept it).

I'm counting the number of possible legal postions up to move 3
to see if they are right. I'm up to 22 at the moment.

6. 22 Jun '10 02:17 / 1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And I mean this in the literal sense. When I was a kid I figured out how to play a perfect game of ticktacktoe. You will literally either lose or draw against me. If I'm X's I start in any corner. As O's, if you choose any square besides the center you lose.

Relatively recently the game of checkers was literally mastered by a computer, perfect de the limits of the human mind and today's technology, is it literally unsolvable?
Yes. Both Black and White have the resources to play any opening to a draw. No perfect has been played to date as far as I know.
7. 22 Jun '10 02:38
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Impossible I'd say.

I've yet to count them all so for now have lifted these figures from;

But they appear to give confirmation links.

There are over 9 million different positions that can arise after 3 moves.
More than 288 Billion after 4 moves.

Up to move 40 it's somethin ...[text shortened]... be Fools Mate.

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh5 mate.

I cannot find fault with any of Black's moves.
Impossible is an awfully big word, figuratively speaking.

Without a doubt the shear magnitude of such a feat is astounding. Keep in mind I'm not talking about the limits of the human mind or technology.

Is there such a thing as the perfect game?
8. 22 Jun '10 03:22 / 3 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Max

I do not have the time at the moment to show you why
1....e5 is the best answer to 1.f3. (it's theory just accept it).

I'm counting the number of possible legal postions up to move 3
to see if they are right. I'm up to 22 at the moment.

pfff rubish. e5 allows f4 transposing into an improved kings gambit a tempo down. Concerning the part about the number of chess games, most possible games are not realistic. For instance. 1.f4 f5, then the kings move around the board for 49 moves, then a3, then the kings move around the board 49 moves and so on. And if the king moves differently one of those moves, it's a completely different game. That's why the number of possible games is impossible to comprehend, and why it's not a good argument against the possibility of finding a perfect game.

On the other hand, Kasparov said it was impossible that, one day, computers would be able to beat humans. We all know how that ended.

also ''I do not have the time at the moment to show you why ''

hahaha surrre

your whole life revolves around looking for obscure games on this site! unless it was time for diner of course ðŸ˜‰
9.  clandarkfire
Grammar Nazi
22 Jun '10 03:48
Of course it's possible, anyone with a brain should be able to figure that out. There is a limited amount of possible moves in a single game, (5949), and therefore a very limited amount of positions that can occur on a chessboard. Obviously, its a huge number, what whether it's 10^10, 10^(10^10), or 10^(10^(10^10) is irrelevant. I have no doubt that there are more possible positions than atoms in the universe, (10^81), but the bottom line is that it's limited and therefore solvable.
10.  Nowakowski
10. O-O
22 Jun '10 04:03 / 6 edits
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Impossible I'd say.

I've yet to count them all so for now have lifted these figures from;

But they appear to give confirmation links.

There are over 9 million different positions that can arise after 3 moves.
More than 288 Billion after 4 moves.

Up to move 40 it's somethin ...[text shortened]... be Fools Mate.

1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh5 mate.

I cannot find fault with any of Black's moves.
I'd have to say the closest to "Perfect Play" that I've ever seen is this:

Karpov vs Hubner, Montreal - 1979

The real game as played in 1979 was played beautifully, until 39. Qc4...

Karpov simply misses a beauty here - unfortunately, otherwise we would be calling it "Karpov's Immortal" no doubt.

Here is the edited version of what was "Almost"

-GIN
11. 22 Jun '10 04:17
Max!!

You are a pain.

You have made lose count already and I was up to 1,150 something.
Now thanks to you I'll have to start all over again.

1.f3 has been played 122 times on our out-of-database.
75 times the answer has been 1.e5 - more than half.

So the boys on here agree 1...e5 is the way to go.

The master appears to be reyotch User 156228
who has played 1.f3 22 times (1.f3 is usually followed with 2.Kf2!)
his score with 1.f3 is 70% wins!

Now please no more posting till I get past the 100,00 mark.
12.  clandarkfire
Grammar Nazi
22 Jun '10 04:24
Originally posted by Nowakowski
I'd have to say the closest to "Perfect Play" that I've ever seen is this:

[b]Karpov vs Hubner, Montreal - 1979

The real game as played in 1979 was played beautifully, until 39. Qc4...
[pgn][Event "10, Montreal ;MCL 02"]
[Site "10, Montreal ;MCL 02"]
[Date "1979.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Anatoli Karpov ...[text shortened]... 3. Qh4+ Kg7 44. Rg8#
1-0[/pgn]

-GIN[/b]
Nice game for Karpov, but obviously not perfect. If it was perfect, his opponent would never have given him that chance. The bottom line remains that since it has a limited number of positions, it's very solvable.
13. 22 Jun '10 05:06
If a perfect game exists, it is irrelevant. In order for chess to be played, human limits a/o computational limits exist. If there was a so-called "database" for the right moves to play, it would be impossible to memorize more than after move three our four. From then on, it would just be chess again.
14. 22 Jun '10 07:34
Originally posted by greenpawn34
There are 318,979,564,000 different ways to play the first 4 moves.
In order to find the "perfect" game, we don't have to consider all possibilities. e.g. in the line 1.f3 e5 2.g4, once Qh5 has been found, there is no need to consider other moves for Black since they cannot possibly be better than Qh5.

This "alpha-beta pruning" is used by engines. With perfect move ordering (which is an ideal, not a given), this pruning would mean that the square root of your figure would be required, so 564782. However, in practice, this ideal is seldom achieved but it does highlight the potential pruning.
15. 22 Jun '10 09:51 / 1 edit
Actually, there is not one perfect game, but many, as we would have to describe all the games leading necessary to draws, (if the perfect game, as we may guess, leads to draw); or all white necessary wins, (if it's not the case).

and this important, for it leaves open different possibilities concerning style; which, everyone will agree, is the most important in chess.