I was thinking about the question whether white actually has an advantage in the beginning. For a long time I thought this was the case. From what I have understood, on top levels, it's "win with white draw with black". It's also what I have been told IRL by my club's top players (2300+). But then, I read a quote by Fischer: "I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically.". I also found some books which claim (without having read them) that black is "equal" (Chess for Zebras-Thinking Differently about Black and White and some other book). If I understood it correctly, they claim that even though white gets to move first, black can exploit that extra information to his advantage..
Another interesting question is: should I play differently with white and with black? For example, there are many defences for black to open with that gives equality or close to it, but I don't think there are not so many standard attacks for white (it kind of depends what blacks, which is the anology "exploit the extra information" ).
I agree, I made a similar comment earlier that if there were two chess gods and they both had infinite knowledge and omnipotent sight that they would draw everytime they played.
The perfect game of chess is one that ends in a draw.
Here is another hypothetical; There are two chess players who have infinitley flawed chess knowledge and sight. No matter what move they played it would be the worst move possible. These players would always draw. Would they not play chess perfectley against eachother - albeit perfectly flawed?
Originally posted by Golub"there are many defences for black to open with that gives equality or close to it"
I was thinking about the question whether white actually has an advantage in the beginning. For a long time I thought this was the case. From what I have understood, on top levels, it's "win with white draw with black". It's also what I have been told IRL by my club's top players (2300+). But then, I read a quote by Fischer: "I think it's almost definite that ...[text shortened]... ind of depends what blacks, which is the anology "exploit the extra information" ).
Even though you question white's claim on an advantage that part of your post shows you still have the wrong mindset.
Black doesn't need to seek equality,he allready has it!It is White who has to prove his claim of having an advantage.
Wether White really has an advantage or not we'll not know untill chess is solved,but if you start a game with the intent to try and reach equality and maybe get a draw you're closer to losing than winning cause,mentally,you admit to yourself you have an inferior position.I think one should always start a game with the clear intent to win it regardless of what color you play.
Originally posted by ShinidokiThat's probably true. It sounds unreasonable that someone could force to a win, I mean even in many rook+pawn endings there are forced draws. But the question is, does he have a slight advantage or not?
nontheless ^^ I somewhat doubt white will actually be able to force a win with perfect play, from move 1.
And for some reason, I find myself winning more with black, partly because I've practiced my defences a lot, but I also did that before I even read any opening theory.
as far as I understand the fun of the game is to play with an opponent and to compare strength. There is a thread where people compare their results from balc and from white. And I am the one whose black performance is significantly better than the white one.
Psychology has probably a lot to do with that.
IF chess is ever solved (That there is an unbeatable strategy for one player [more probable white]) I think that the game will loose its point. Except if the serial of moves is too long for a human to remember and there are pitfalls if the moves are not executed exactly right...
If chess ever became a game like atomic, where white has a clear advantage then chess would fall out of popularity. We would then start playing games like gothic chess, or fisher random. I am not going to worry about this though; there are far too many possibilities for a computer to analyze. Strong players can often calculate very far because they know that this flows into that, so the next 10 moves are entirely predictable. This is the advantage we have over computers.
It doesn’t really matter what computer analysis produces, now or in the future. We know that chess is hugely complicated and our brains struggle with its complexity – none of this will ever change. If a computer discovers that White has a forced win, it will hardly change anything about the way humans play chess. Humans will still make mistakes.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by VarenkaIsnt there an attempt being made in draughts to find the perfect game? If it succeeds maybe the people who are playing the game might continue but I think it would have a decremental effect on the amount of new comers to the game. Of course humans will always make mistakes but someone who knows nothing about a game might think "Its solved....why bother" I know that if chess was totally solved, even if I couldnt follow it, that the game would lose some of its sparkle.
It doesn’t really matter what computer analysis produces, now or in the future. We know that chess is hugely complicated and our brains struggle with its complexity – none of this will ever change. If a computer discovers that White has a forced win, it will hardly change anything about the way humans play chess. Humans will still make mistakes.
Originally posted by BedlamA position is only a zugzwang if it is proved that it is a disadvantage to have the move. Since the thread is a discussion about this, with Fischer saying "I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically.". Gorgar claiming "Black doesn't need to seek equality,
White might lose because he has the first move......it is zugzwang after all 😛
he allready(sic) has it!", but nobody proving it one way or the other, it can't be claimed that the initial position is a zugzwang.
However, a look at the results of a number of first class matches or tournaments will show White winning more games than Black, with a large number of draws. Just one example I happen to have at hand; in the 1993 match for the World Championship, Kasparov v Short, out of twenty games, six were won by White, one was won by Black, and thirteen were drawn. This is the sort of result that causes Grandmasters and Masters to adopt the "Win as White and draw as Black " approach. After all, if you do this you score 75%, enough to win many tournaments easily.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by Essex 3It is zugzwang if its proven that every white opening move loses.
A position is only a zugzwang if it is proved that it is a disadvantage to have the move. Since the thread is a discussion about this, with Fischer saying "I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically.". Gorgar claiming "Black doesn't need to seek equality,
he allready(sic) has it!", but nobody proving it one way or the other, it can't ...[text shortened]... proach. After all, if you do this you score 75%, enough to win many tournaments easily.
Fischer saying chess is a theoretical draw means nothing. He couldnt possibly know.