21 Oct '07 22:12>
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexHow can they prove it? What if they try to prove but instead end up proving that white is in zugzwang?
If a master of defence played against a master of attack - who would come out on top?
Originally posted by gaychessplayerbut as chess knowledge grows and draws are increasing then you can't say that white isn't in zugzwang because what if the next step is that black starts winning more often.
It is almost certain, IMO, and chess is a draw with "best" play. The top players of today know more about chess than the greats of yesteryear, and both White and Black are winning less and draws are increasing at the top levels.
If White had a forced win, then you would expect that, as knowledge of chess increased, that White would be winning more and more games and that draws would be decreasing. Neither of those things are happening.
Originally posted by tomtom232Both White and Black are winning less, and draws are increasing. If White was in zugzwang, then you'd expect to see Black winning more as White wins less, but this is not happening.
but as chess knowledge grows and draws are increasing then you can't say that white isn't in zugzwang because what if the next step is that black starts winning more often.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by tomtom232An interesting if unlikely conjecture! But perhaps in the far distant future some super-computer reveals that White is disadvantaged by moving first and there is a forced win for black!!
How can they prove it? What if they try to prove but instead end up proving that white is in zugzwang?
Originally posted by tomtom232I doubt we will know in our lifetime. But I have heard that maybe some day quantum computers may be able to prove it. Empirically speaking, since white wins more often this is strongly suggestive the game is not a forced win for black
How can they prove it? What if they try to prove but instead end up proving that white is in zugzwang?
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexUsually the more well-rounded player wins. Universality of play is a more worthy goal than to be "the best attacking player," or the "best defensive player."
If a master of defence played against a master of attack - who would come out on top?
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI was tempted to answer this question with sarcasm:
If a master of defence played against a master of attack - who would come out on top?
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexAll you need to do to answer your question is check out the 1960 world title clash between Tal and Botvinnik. Tal's attacking genius was rivalled only by Alekhine and Morphy in the whole of chess history; Where as Botvinnik, who was known as the Iron man, could defend positions in a similar way to modern day super computers.
If a master of defence played against a master of attack - who would come out on top?