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%."

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?).

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...

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, 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.

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

--> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...

<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)