< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jun-09-05|| ||Montreal1666: <ongyj:> the argument is that if at any given position both sides play the "best" move then the game will end in a draw. In other words for any game to be won by one side, the opponent has to make a move that is not the "best" move. Now if you take this back to the 1st black move in response to 1)e4 then
the "best" move is only one of:
1)...c5 1)...e5 1)...e6 1)...c6 1)...Nf6 1)..d6 1)...d5 and ...
The chances of 1)...d5 to be the "best"
is almost none. As we all know the most likely answer for the "best" move is either 1)...c5 or 1)...e5. But I don't
think the answer is known yet 100%.
|Jun-09-05|| ||ongyj: <Montreal1666>
Was the mention of the argument ever "if at any given position both sides play the "best" move then the game will end in a draw?" In my opinion this argument is fundamentally flawed, since best move doesn't exist, at least the goodness of a move is subjected to opinions based on different criteria of choice.
What I was more interested about is that whether games can have a decisive result without an outright blunder from either side. Master Eric Schiller has mentioned that in his opinion a chess game cannot be won without a serious blunder by an opponent, which I disagreed, offering 3 examples which I feel neither party has made any real blunders ending with a decisive result.
Anyway, in response to your best move against 1.e4, you concluded with
"The chances of 1)...d5 to be the "best"
is almost none. As we all know the most likely answer for the "best" move is either 1)...c5 or 1)...e5. But I don't think the answer is known yet 100%."
Do you have any means, in forms of opinion, opening guidelines/theory ectera to support your stand? I don't wish to repeat myself unnecessarily but your opinion seems to be so trendy/statistical. 1...c5 and/or1...e5 are the hot responses while the rest including 1...d5 are the less popular ones but surely that doesn't always mean lesser played openings are inferior right?
|Jun-09-05|| ||Montreal1666: <ongyj:> I agree that a blunder is very different from not playing the "best" move. And perhaps Mr. <Eric Schiller:>
can clarify for us wheter or not 1)...c5 & 1)...e5 are supperior to 1)...d5.|
|Jun-09-05|| ||ughaibu: A couple more to consider: Geller vs K Klaman, 1949 Geller vs Leonid Stein, 1964|
|Jun-13-05|| ||patzer2: <ongyj> <Was the mention of the argument ever "if at any given position both sides play the "best" move then the game will end in a draw?" In my opinion this argument is fundamentally flawed, since best move doesn't exist, at least the goodness of a move is subjected to opinions based on different criteria of choice.> The proposition under discussion as I understand it is that if from the start of a classical variant chess game, if both sides make all best moves, then the game will end in a draw. |
The idea that "best moves do not exist" because there are sometimes differences of opinion as to what constitutes a best move is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad ignoranum as explained at http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html.) Just because strong chess master analysts sometimes disagree as to what constitutes a "best move" in a particular position does not prove that best moves are nonexistant. At best, it only establishes that all best moves are not yet known. Yet in fairness to you <ongyj>, in generously interpreting your argument, I think that appears to be the point you were trying to make (How can both players make all best moves if all best moves are not yet known?).
My own thought is that the statement "all classic chess games in which both players make all 'best moves' will end in a draw" is a statement of opinion which remains to be proven. It could be that a perfectly played classical variant chess game will end in a forced win for White. Or perhaps, in the eyes of an omnisicient God, classical variant chess is nothing more than a grand version of tic tac toe, ending in a draw with perfect play by both sides. However, IMHO, human knowledge of the game and what constitutes "pefect play or best play" has not reached a point at which such a proposition can be proven.
|Jun-13-05|| ||RisingChamp: It is completely ridiculous to suggest that Eric Schiller(with all respect to him as a strong player with 2300 rating)could clarify whether 1...e5 and 1....c5 are better responese to 1 e4 than 1...d5,whatever he has to say on that topic would be merely his opinion,and on this specific topic I wouldnt take anyone's opinion too seriously.
I have to point out that the concept of best move is just rubbish.Heres why. Depending on different situations different moves may be better even in the same position.Chess is a game and not a science,attempts to ignore the realities such as time controls,opponent,situation are silly.
However even if you decide to be purely "objective" there may be several moves which lead to the same result and then which is the "best move"? If you still want to stick to a "best move" theory,you will have to reintroduce subjective factors-which move wins quickest or draws easiest(easiest in terms of how easy the position is to defend or how many before the rules of chess demand the game be stopped???).After all objectively there is no reason to prefer mate in 1 to mate in 76 since the result is the same anyway.
For all we know chess may turn out to be zugzwang. <Montreal1666>s implicit belief that the "best moves" are nothing but the moves favoured in current GM practice really deserves no comment.|
|Jun-17-05|| ||ongyj: Gosh, am I flattered to know that there are users who actually read my posts so seriously, even probably to the extent of overdoing it!?|
Firstly I don't understand what's the fuss over the debate of 'best move' here all about. Initally all I said was that I believe a decisive result(1-0 or 0-1) can occur even when neither player made a serious blunder, period.
Okay, so I may be slightly enlightened, but even now I'll rather choose to remain on my stand and still say the same thing: "best move doesn't exist, at least the goodness of a move is subjected to opinions based on different criteria of choice."
<patzer2> If it was ignorant for me to believe that the best move doesn't exist then I'll issue you a direct challenge. On what logical/reasonable grounds do you have to believe that best move(s) exist in the very first place?
What I do know is that the best move doesn't exist, simply because everyone's criteria for a good move is different. By the way the 'best move' that's been in the discuession here applies more to openings. If you are talking from an uneven position such as puzzles with a winning move for White/Black I think some threads have been wasted...
Yes, this reply from mine seems rather offensive, even in my personal opinion and I do not wish to hide my feelings about it. I'm rather confident that it'd yet reached the degree of personal attacks yet though, so I should be able to get away scot-free:) I wish to speak no more here, since it's rather unnecessary(people who understands what I said understood and people who misinterprets always do. Perhaps I should go for some language tuitions... ha:)
|Jun-17-05|| ||patzer2: <ongyj> <If it was ignorant for me to believe that the best move doesn't exist then I'll issue you a direct challenge. On what logical/reasonable grounds do you have to believe that best move(s) exist in the very first place?> |
My apologies if you thought I was challenging your intellect or was making a personal attack. Far from it! I enjoyed your thoughtful post.
And you make a good point that my faith in the existence of a "best move" in positions that are unclear or in dispute among the GM analysts may also meet the criteria of an argument from ignorance. Just as dispute among the GMs does not prove best moves do not exist in those positions, such disagreement does not prove they do exist.
However, I do think it fair to state that in the majority of positions, best moves do exist based
on a consensus of expert opinion (i.e. GM analysts etc.). I also think it fair to state that there are many unclear positions in Chess, where it is not clear what is the best move. However, as a matter of personal faith in an omniscient God, I believe best moves such positions are known and exist, and simply await human discovery.
|Jun-17-05|| ||ongyj: <patzer2> I apologise for being rude. Please pardon a hot tempered teen who'se entering adulthood:(|
|Jul-01-05|| ||peanut: These guys are really at it! Leko and Adams i mean...|
|Jul-07-05|| ||patzer2: Since Leko and Adams played to a draw in their recent match, and Leko drew with Kramnik in a recent world championship match, I suspect Leko and Kramnik would not fare any better than Leko did in his match with the Chess computer Hydra (losing five and drawing only one of six games).|
|Jul-08-05|| ||aw1988: <patzer2> Evidently you are under the incorrect idea that x beats y, y beats z, therefore z must lose to x. Or something.|
|Jul-08-05|| ||delterp: Actually it is a scientific law related to what you mean, aw1988.
It is called the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics (no joke).
If A implies B and B implies C, then no information is gathered about A versus C.
Boy 1 likes Girl 1
Girl 1 likes Boy 2
Then what about Boy 1 and Boy 2????? Nothing.
|Jul-08-05|| ||aw1988: Right, that's what I mean.|
|Jul-08-05|| ||notsodeepthought: <delterp: Boy 1 likes Girl 1
Girl 1 likes Boy 2
Then what about Boy 1 and Boy 2????? Nothing.> Well, we don't know for sure, there just might be something between Boy 1 and Boy 2 - though in that case, someone should tactfully let Girl 1 know that she's wasting her time.
|Jul-08-05|| ||keypusher: <Boy 1 likes Girl 1
Girl 1 likes Boy 2
Then what about Boy 1 and Boy 2????? Nothing.>
OK, but there is a difference between "liking" and chess results. If x beats y 6-0 and none of the games lasts more than 20 moves and y beats z 6-0 and none of the games last more than 20 moves, and then x plays z in a match, I for one would bet pretty heavily on x. Wouldn't you?
|Jul-08-05|| ||aw1988: Right, though not many games are like that.|
|Jul-10-05|| ||patzer2: <aw1988> I'm not sure how Kramnik or Leko would fare against Hydra. That's why I said I suspect they would lose.|
However, if one assumes the two premises to be true that (1) Hydra will beat all players in match play who are not stronger than Adams of Adams and (2) that Leko and Kramnik are not stronger than Adams, then the conclusion that Hydra would beat Leko or Kramnik match play is a sound deductive logic conclusion.
Stated as a formal categorical syllogism:
Major Premise: All players not stronger than Adams at Chess are players Hydra would defeat in Chess match play.
Minor Premise: Leko and Kramnik are are players not stronger than Adams at Chess.
Conclusion: Leko and Adams are players Hydra would defeat in Chess match play.
Note: Deductive logic syllogisms, which date back to the time of Aristotle, can be tested for valid form at http://www.phil.gu.se/johan/ollb/Sy.... For those interested this is the AAA-1 syllogism form, known by the menumonic as "Barbara," and is the most basic of deductive logic syllogistic forms.
However, for such a logical conclusion to be sound, not only must the form be valid but the premises must also be true in all cases. And that is where this conclusion is open to question.
The second premise is also open to question, as Kramnik and Leko have maintained a slightly higher rating over time than Adams. I also suppose it is possible that the more defensive positional style of Leko and Kramnik might enable them to score better against this strong program, leaving the first premise also open to question.
However, after watching the monster Hydra so thoroughly defeat Adams, my strong suspicion remains that no human can best it in classical Chess match play.
|Jul-19-05|| ||miamihurricane: An interesting mate in one is -Paul Keres vs Bobby Fischer- Where Bobby mates him in the center of the board.|
|Jul-25-05|| ||peanut: <miamihurricane: An interesting mate in one is -Paul Keres vs Bobby Fischer- Where Bobby mates him in the center of the board.> May i know where that game can be located?|
|Jul-25-05|| ||Benzol: <peanut> I think the game is this one Keres vs Fischer, 1959|
|Aug-18-05|| ||peanut: <Benzol: <peanut> I think the game is this one Keres vs Fischer, 1959>Thank you Sir, and may i say that of all the kibitzers here, you icon stands out. Very artistic. Thanks again for the game. :)|
|Feb-14-09|| ||whiteshark: |
Anyone who has visited the beautiful Hungarian capital of Budapest will never forget the trip. If you have visited Miskolc, that country’s third largest city, you might like to forget it. That industrial hangover from communist days makes Milton Keynes look chic. To be fair, I only went there for the day and the website reads “the beautiful city of Miskolc.” The city jewels were obviously well hidden behind the factories.
I was amused then to see that Mickey Adams was playing Peter Leko, the Hungarian maestro in Miskolc last week. English chess players have a long tradition of visiting Hungary. There are plenty of tournaments, the food is excellent and the wine superb. Oh, and our masters have a habit of marrying (and divorcing) the pretty Hungarian girls.
After three rounds it was clear that Mickey was there for the chess …
-- David Norwood in his Daily Telegraph column
|Jun-03-09|| ||minasina: Leko-Anand Rapid Match (2009)|
<Leko-Carlsen> Rapid Match (2008) Carlsen-Leko Rapid Match (2008)
Leko<->Kramnik Rapid Match (2007) Leko vs Kramnik Rapid Match (2007)
Leko-Karpov <Rapid> Match (2006) Leko-Karpov Match (2006)
Leko<->Adams <Rapid> Match (2005) Leko & Adams (2005)
|Dec-16-10|| ||minasina: Leko-Gelfand Match (2010)|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·