|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Feb-18-07
 |
| whatthefat: <ganstaman>
Or to take a couple of even more extreme examples,
click for larger view
click for larger viewIn both cases, the material advantage is irrelevant; the game is drawn. |
 |
Feb-18-07
|
| whatthefat: <extremepleasure>
You're not being very precise. First you wish to talk about the objective outcome of chess as a mathematical problem, but then you say things like this: <If you make the best move which the position demands starting from the very first move, any inaccuracy made by your opponent will disturb the balance in the initial position in favour of you. That is what chess is all about in fact.> This is now bringing the practical side of chess into account, which is incongruous with your original problem. If chess is objectively a draw then in terms of a solution to chess there is no reason to value one move that leads to a draw above another. It may be true that in reply to 1.e4 both 1...c5 and 1...a6 draw. The latter of course is more difficult for a human player to defend, but that's not what is being debated here. |
|
Feb-18-07
 |
| ganstaman: <extremepleasure: extremepleasure: ganstaman, I am talking about positions in which the balance that exists in the initial position is maintained due to the perfect moves made by each side, not drawn positions. There is a big difference between a drawn position and a position in which the balance that exists in the initial position is maintained due to perfect moves made by both sides from the very first move to the last, and needless to say that to make these perfect moves is not that easy. Each player should make the best move the position demands in order to keep the balance at least, and making the best move the position demands requires far superior knowledge regarding evaluating and manipulating the information, calculation skills and accuracy which we humans can probably never attain. If you make the best move which the position demands starting from the very first move, any inaccuracy made by your opponent will disturb the balance in the initial position in favour of you. That is what chess is all about in fact.> The thing I don't get is that I don't disagree with any of this, but yet you don't seem to make the connections. You keep talking about maintaining whatever it is we have from the start. So, what if we have a draw from the start? Then, with perfect play from both sides, the end result is a draw. Please tell me you can understand this much. I can't go on if you can't get past this. Also, <I am talking about positions in which the balance that exists in the initial position is maintained due to the perfect moves made by each side, not drawn positions.> Why do you keep insisting that the start position is not drawn? I've asked this in nearly every post so far but you've ignored me every single time. So just give me a straight forward answer -- are you trying to claim that chess is a forced win for white? |
|
Feb-18-07
|
| ganstaman: <whatthefat: <ganstaman> Or to take a couple of even more extreme examples,
>
Well, I need to work on my endgames. I was going to go with this at first:
click for larger viewThen I checked it with a tablebase just to make sure... Simple is better for me :) |
|
| Feb-18-07 |
| extremepleasure: whatthefat,
These positions you and gastaman posted here are the positions arise from the cases when each side disturbed the balance in the initial position by exchanging the initiative as well as the positional and material harmony between white and black pieces (that exists in the initial position) with either insufficient or ample positional or material gains due to lack of ultimate accuracy from the very first move to the last one. |
|
Feb-18-07
|
| whatthefat: To give an example of my above point, imagine the following game. White, using the advantage of the first move manages to win rook for bishop and pawn, leading to the following ending:
click for larger viewWhite's extra point of material cannot be made to count, so the position is drawn, despite White having 'maintained his initiative' thus far, or however you wish to phrase it. Now an objectively fine move for White is this position is 1.Rf4, since 1...Bxf4 still gives a drawn ending, with White's king moving Kf1-g2-h1. One might say "but giving up the rook for free is obviously not best play, since White has no practical chances after that", but that would be getting muddled up, since if we're speaking of objectively perfect play, 'practical chances' are nonexistant. |
|
Feb-18-07
|
| whatthefat: <extremepleasure>
To help me better understand your stance, do you consider chess to objectively be: (a) a win for White
(b) a draw
(c) the jury's out |
|
Feb-18-07
|
| ganstaman: <extremepleasure: whatthefat, These positions you and gastaman posted here are the positions arise from the cases when each side disturbed the balance in the initial position by exchanging the initiative as well as the positional and material harmony between white and black pieces (that exists in the initial position) with either insufficient or ample positional or material gains due to lack of ultimate accuracy from the very first move to the last one.> This is why they are called examples. Also, you are still assuming chess is a forced win for white while you refuse to actually state so. |
|
| Feb-18-07 |
| extremepleasure: whatthefat: ''You're not being very precise. First you wish to talk about the objective outcome of chess as a mathematical problem, but then you say things like this:
<If you make the best move which the position demands starting from the very first move, any inaccuracy made by your opponent will disturb the balance in the initial position in favour of you. That is what chess is all about in fact.>'' extreme: Here I am talking about the dynamics of chess that affect the outcome in a chess game. In my initial statements, on the other hand, I was drawing the theoretical conclusions by emphasizing the limitations which inheritly exist in chess such as the requirement of having sufficient amount of material to checkmate. In a nutshell, we can say that chess is a draw with best moves but, making it a draw against a player who makes the best possible move starting from the initial position is not possible unless you also make the same perfect moves starting from the initial position exactly like him. Saying that ''this is an equal balanced game'' is an evaluation of the position. Saying that ''this is a draw'' or ''this is a win'', on the other hand, requires precision. |
|
Feb-18-07
|
| whatthefat: <extremepleasure: In a nutshell, we can say that chess is a draw with best moves but, making it a draw against a player who makes the best possible move starting from the initial position is not possible unless you also make the same perfect moves starting from the initial position exactly like him. Saying that ''this is an equal balanced game'' is an evaluation of the position. Saying that ''this is a draw'' or ''this is a win'', on the other hand, requires precision.> Okay, I don't think we're actually opposed then, but rather pursuing different discussions. |
|
| Mar-19-07 |
| SirBruce: Chess could actually be a win for black with best play, but that seems unlikely. Statistics tell us that white wins more than black, and as you go up in ELOs, GM play leads to more draws, but not more wins for black. It would be very odd if, as one played more and more of the theoretical "best moves", that the percentages moved away from the ideal game where black is a forced win. So it seems very likely that either chess is a forced draw, with a slim chance that it's a forced win for white (although perhaps only if the proper opening). |
|
| Mar-22-07 |
| PhilFeeley: A very interesting game from the "lower level" in this opening. Black never seemed out of control in this game, and when it seemed to me like a draw (Kings & pawns) white fell apart. [Event "FSGM February"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2007.02.04"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Bodiroga,P"]
[Black "Papp,Ge"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2431"]
[BlackElo "2335"]
[EventDate "2007.02.03"]
[ECO "A43"]
1. d4 c5 2. d5 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 d6 5. g3 Na6 6. dxe6 fxe6 7. Bg2 d5 8.
O-O Be7 9. Ne5 O-O 10. e4 d4 11. Nb5 Nc7 12. a4 Nd7 13. Nxc7 Qxc7 14. Nc4
b6 15. e5 Ba6 16. b3 Bb7 17. Qg4 Rf5 18. Bh6 Rf7 19. Rae1 Bxg2 20. Kxg2
Qc6+ 21. f3 Raf8 22. h4 Qd5 23. Bd2 a6 24. Qe4 Qxe4 25. Rxe4 b5 26. axb5
axb5 27. Na5 Ra8 28. Ra1 Nb6 29. Ree1 Bf8 30. Nc6 Rc7 31. Rxa8 Nxa8 32. Ra1
Rxc6 33. Rxa8 Rc7 34. Ba5 Rb7 35. f4 Kf7 36. Kf3 h5 37. Ke4 g6 38. Bd8 Rd7
39. Bb6 Rb7 40. Ra7 Rxa7 41. Bxa7 Ke8 42. b4 c4 43. Kxd4 Bxb4 44. c3 Ba5
45. Bc5 Kd7 46. Bb4 Bxb4 47. cxb4 Kc6 48. Ke4 c3 49. Kd3 Kd5 50. Kxc3 Ke4
51. Kc2 Kf3 52. Kd3 Kxg3 53. Ke4 Kxh4 0-1
|
|
| Mar-22-07 |
| PhilFeeley: Another win by Papp, same opening, same tournament. He came prepared to win: [Event "FSGM February"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "2007.02.06"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Rajlich,I"]
[Black "Papp,Ge"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2428"]
[BlackElo "2335"]
[EventDate "2007.02.03"]
[ECO "A43"]
1. d4 c5 2. d5 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Bc4 O-O 7. O-O Na6 8.
dxe6 Bxe6 9. Bxe6 fxe6 10. e5 dxe5 11. Qe2 Nd5 12. Qxe5 Nac7 13. Nxd5 exd5
14. Bf4 Rc8 15. Rae1 Bf6 16. Qh5 d4 17. Ng5 Bxg5 18. Bxg5 Qd5 19. Re7 Ne6
20. h4 Rc7 21. Rxc7 Nxc7 22. Qg4 Ne6 23. Re1 Rf5 24. c4 dxc3 25. bxc3 Nxg5
26. hxg5 Rxg5 27. Qc8+ Kf7 28. Qe8+ Kf6 29. Qe7+ Kg6 30. Re6+ Kh5 31. f3 h6
32. g4+ Kh4 33. Re2 Qxf3 34. Rg2 Kh3 35. Rh2+ Kxg4 36. Rg2+ Kh3 37. Rxg5
hxg5 0-1 |
|
May-16-07
 |
| WannaBe: I'm currently doing some studying/playing on-line with this opening as part of black's response for 1. d4 Found it to be quite interesting/fun despite the percentages in the database. < White wins 41.4%
Black wins 28.0%
Draws 30.6%> |
|
May-16-07
 |
| WarmasterKron: I experimented with the Old Benoni for a while, as I was having difficulty finding a good move against 1.d4. Of course, I later realised that I was pushing the wrong bishop pawn! |
|
May-16-07
|
| WannaBe: <WarmasterKron> If you were pushing the wrong bishop pawn, you'd end up with the Dutch! =) |
|
May-17-07
|
| WarmasterKron: That was sort of my point. I gave up the Old Benoni in favour of the Dutch! |
|
| Nov-18-07 |
| Red October: under rated opening... can be useful |
|
Nov-18-07
|
| WannaBe: <Red October> I've used this once/twice... Not too much success. =( |
|
Nov-18-07
 |
| whiteshark: <WannaBe: <Red October> I've used this once/twice... Not too much success. =(>
counter question... |
|
Nov-18-07
 |
| AgentRgent: I use 1. d4 c5 almost exclusively now. Typically as a transpositional device to reach a Benko. But I like to offer my opponents the chance to go wrong with 2. dxc5 Of course if my opponents enjoy the Sicilian with white, they can achieve it with the 2. Nf3. but as I've said before "I consider the Open Sicilian to be a refutation of 1. e4 on positional grounds" so getting there via 1. d4 and 2. Nf3 doesn't bother me. |
|
| Nov-18-07 |
| Red October: this used to be my main line until the lines with Bg5 made me very uncomfortable |
|
| May-04-08 |
| Edwin Meyer: <WannaBe> You shouldn't let those database percentages fool you as 1.d4 c5 often transposes into other openings such as the Benko or Modern Benoni which makes the overall percentage turn out more like this; <With 17914 games played in MB20071-0 =39%
1/2-1/2 =27%
0-1 =34%>
The percentages here are probably percentages for the pure Old Benoni plus the number of games is way lower. |
|
| May-17-08 |
| Alphastar: <Edwin Meyer: <WannaBe> You shouldn't let those database percentages fool you> Also because database percentages have no meaning other than stating how many times white has won, the game has been drawn and black has won. If the soundness of an opening can be based on a high white winning percentage we should start playing 1. Na3. |
|
| May-12-09 |
| Fanacas: Alphaster is right. I have used the old benoni 2 3 times and won all 3 games with it most people dont now it. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
