perfect play = draw??

I have come across the idea among several threads lately that with perfect play a draw should in theory result.  I would think white has the advantage if for no other reason then white would likely be able to choose the first exchange and thus control play. 

Just a thought.   I am really trying to improve my game and often win as a result of just one non mating move on my opponents part. 

'perfect play' should result in a draw, according to analysis that has been done.

It is unknown if "perfect play" yields a draw, a win for black, or a win for white. Those that say it "should", or "more than likely" have any of the three results, are guessing. Chess is far from being solved and therefore, no one knows the result of perfect play.

Ohgod. After a few weeks on the site, I think I've realized this is one of those "turns up once a week/fortnight" threads, along with the "favourite move/opening/piece/grandmaster/kitten", "should we resign in a poor position" and "drawing by repetition is cheap" threads. Ah well, another one to toss in the "threads to avoid" list.

I apprecaite the input and tyziefits on this subject.  For me it is a psycological benefit in understanding this.  If the best black can hope for is a draw then a more defensive game is in order.  I find it impossible to think that any advantage confered to black by moving second, thus resulting in a win, could not be equally assumed by white.  As far as analasis goes, I would think calculating what side wins more often in Grand Master play would be a good gauge.  IN any case it will be sometime before I can aspire to "perfect" play.

I too suspect it is a draw -- if you consider that K+N vs K or K+B vs K (or even K+N+N vs K) are draws and that they present a much larger imbalance (especially when considered as a percentage of remaining material) than is offered by the first move advantage it seems like it would be hard, impossible really, to leverage that first move advantage into a sufficient imbalance to force the win against a perfect opponent.

Source.

It probably would be a draw though, I would think.

ahh, thanks TheGrobe. I suppose sacrificing a piece for a drawn position would be a perfectly reasonable outcome.  ..but still I wonder,  dream perhaps,, does white not have the perfect attack?  No draw, no chance, just the unrelenting onslaught of white wood! 

Lol, I have got to start using that term.

One word: Zugzwang.

Once you learn enough about endgames it's obvious that the first move advantage isn't enough to force a winnable endgame.

I have a long way to go and am not a master, not trying to be cocky, just saying.

Checkers has been proven a draw... chess probably won't be solved in our lifetime (if ever), but it certainly seems that a single move isn't enough to confer victory.

 Yes I have a source. Remember, I said that it would be a draw "according to the analysis that has been done". Of course, not all analysis has been done (i.e. chess has not been 'solved' as a mathematical exercise - i believe that draughts [checkers] has been solved).

'Perfect play' is a draw.

Think about it. Both sides play perfect and defend perfectly. There is no attack which can arise, and any exchange leaves both sides balanced.

Tell me. How is one of them going to win? By one of them leaving the queen hanging? That can't happen if it is 'perfect play'.

It is a draw, further seconded by mkirk with his analysis evidence.

Isnt the point in most grandmaster games getting a small advantage and turning it into a slightly bigger advantage over time.  Is it not possible that small advantage of moving first could be turned into a material advantage at some point with perfect play.

Untill  'perfect play' has been worked out there can be no way of knowing who would win or wether it would be draw by repetition after three moves because going first is a disadvantage and so both black and white just move their knights back and forth.

Unfortunately, in a world where humans make mistakes, there is no 'perfect play' in chess... well, yet, since it's been attempted to be 'solved'.

Right now, we only get draws with stalemates and handshakes which occur as early as 15 moves.

Yes, because with 'perfect play' white cannot hope for more than a small advantage out of the opening, and if play continues 'perfectly' that advantage will not grow larger.

I think one of Steintiz's theories went like this

1. All perfect games result in a draw

2. Therefore, a critical mistake or a series of mistakes must be made if one loses a game.

On a slightly related topic, I put forward the idea that any first move by white will result in a draw with perfect play.

Anyone want to wager against me? 

Thank you Amnesiac, sound thinking, people keep assuming that with perfect play black can stop white turning his small advantage into a game winning advantage, and whilst there is not really any proof he/she can, there is no proof he/she can't either. Apart from "common sense" which does not require logic

Using statistics to try to decide what happens with perfect play isn't a good idea. In connect four, going second is often a big advantage for a human player because it's just easier to win that way. However, connect four has been solved and with perfect play the first player will win. So, why does the second player statistically do better?

It's because playing perfectly is extraordinarily difficult, beyond the capability of any human. I don't remember the exact numbers, but in order to play perfectly in connect four the first player only has one correct reply to each of black's moves during the first 15 moves of the game. If we assume there are roughly 5 possible moves each turn, in order to play perfectly the first player would have to memorize 5^15 opening sequences. A computer can do that, but a human can't.

What I'm saying is this: in chess it could be that in reality there are 1 million ways for white to win, and only one way for black to win, but black's way happens to be a forced win and black will always win with perfect play. Even if that were so, playing as white would still be much EASIER for a human being.

Just because white wins statistically more often is absolutely no reason to think that in reality the game is biased towards white, or that it would be a draw. Basically, we can't infer anything, since the game isn't solved.