#9710
"they say chess starts to be drawish as u lessen the time & ⛬ calc area (for both sapiens & inorganics). can we agree to agree on this one ?"
++ No, not at all, on the contrary: more time = more draws
See figure 2
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
1 s/move: 88.2% draw, 7.72% white wins, 4.09% black wins
1 min/move: 97.9% draw, 1.8% white wins, 0.3% black wins
When time is multiplied by 60, the number of decisive games goes down a factor 5.6
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
tygxc wrote:
#9710
"they say chess starts to be drawish as u lessen the time & ⛬ calc area (for both sapiens & inorganics). can we agree to agree on this one ?"
++ No, not at all, on the contrary: more time = more draws
See figure 2
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
1 s/move: 88.2% draw, 7.72% white wins, 4.09% black wins
1 min/move: 97.9% draw, 1.8% white wins, 0.3% black wins
When time is multiplied by 60, the number of decisive games goes down a factor 5.6
That's very interesting. I would expect the draw rate to increase (but never reach 100% of course). What I'm wondering about is the white wins vs black wins difference. In your opinion, would you say when time is multiplied by 60 that the white win percentage goes up compared to the black win percentage?
#9722
"would you say when time is multiplied by 60 that white wins far more often than black?"
++ Yes.
We also see that in ICCF world championship at 5 days/move, engines allowed
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745
136 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins
Chess is a draw, but the path to the draw is wider for white and narrower for black.
tygxc wrote:
#9722
"would you say when time is multiplied by 60 that white wins far more often than black?"
++ Yes.
We also see that in ICCF world championship at 5 days/move, engines allowed
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745
136 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins
Chess is a draw, but the path to the draw is wider for white and narrower for black.
That makes sense, for now. Chess is a forced win for white, but the path narrows as time goes by. As computers get better, we will see the draw rate increase and we will also see (what you showed) the rate of white wins increase.
So eventually, maybe 100 years from now, the draw rate will be something like 99%, the white win rate will be something like 99% of non draws, and people will mostly agree that chess is a draw or win for white.
But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins. At all.
It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found.
#9727
"Chess is a forced win for white"
++ No, not at all. Chess is a draw, but black has more ways to err than white.
White can afford to lose a tempo, then white is just black: 1 e3 e5 2 e4, draw
Black can afford to lose a tempo: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8, draw
White can afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1, still draw
Black cannot afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 Nb8 should win for white.
"But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins."
++ No, there still will be black wins: to err is human and humans will still err as white.
Look at the last classical world championship Carlsen - Nepo:
7 draws, 2 white wins, 2 black wins
"It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found."
++ No, there is no white win, so it will not and cannot be found.
May 3, 2022
0
#8347
tygxc wrote:
#9727
"Chess is a forced win for white"
++ No, not at all. Chess is a draw, but black has more ways to err than white.
White can afford to lose a tempo, then white is just black: 1 e3 e5 2 e4, draw
Black can afford to lose a tempo: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8, draw
White can afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1, still draw
Black cannot afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 Nb8 should win for white.
"But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins."
++ No, there still will be black wins: to err is human and humans will still err as white.
Look at the last classical world championship Carlsen - Nepo:
7 draws, 2 white wins, 2 black wins
"It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found."
++ No, there is no white win, so it will not and cannot be found.
Hah! I see at least SOMEONE knows what they are talking about here. and yes- it is all absolutely true.
May 3, 2022
0
#8348
Optimissed wrote:
cobrakai1 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
#9727
"Chess is a forced win for white"
++ No, not at all. Chess is a draw, but black has more ways to err than white.
White can afford to lose a tempo, then white is just black: 1 e3 e5 2 e4, draw
Black can afford to lose a tempo: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8, draw
White can afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1, still draw
Black cannot afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 Nb8 should win for white.
"But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins."
++ No, there still will be black wins: to err is human and humans will still err as white.
Look at the last classical world championship Carlsen - Nepo:
7 draws, 2 white wins, 2 black wins
"It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found."
++ No, there is no white win, so it will not and cannot be found.
Hah! I see at least SOMEONE knows what they are talking about here. and yes- it is all absolutely true.
Yes, a complete load of rubbish!
May SEEM like rubbish but really, its truly straight-forward. and it directly answers the question to this discussion.
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
tygxc wrote:
#9722
"would you say when time is multiplied by 60 that white wins far more often than black?"
++ Yes.
We also see that in ICCF world championship at 5 days/move, engines allowed
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745
136 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins
Chess is a draw, but the path to the draw is wider for white and narrower for black.
That makes sense, for now. Chess is a forced win for white, but the path narrows as time goes by. As computers get better, we will see the draw rate increase and we will also see (what you showed) the rate of white wins increase.
So eventually, maybe 100 years from now, the draw rate will be something like 99%, the white win rate will be something like 99% of non draws, and people will mostly agree that chess is a draw or win for white.
But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins. At all.
It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found.
Just a point. I know you're only playing with people and I have faith in your intelligence, which I doubt is misplaced.
So you use this "chess is a forced win for white" spiel for shock effect. Even so, it may be possible to maintain that effect and yet phrase it in such a way that you aren't so obviously pretending to know something you cannot possibly know. Leaving aside the possibly objectionable reason that it's simply incorrect, I know that it's impossible for you to have the evidence that chess is a forced win from the starting position. I mean, you wouldn't bet the clothes you're standing up in on the result of it, if you were in a crowded place, so you don't know it and only state that you do know it to achieve an effect on your readership.
See this space next week for more on "the forcibly winning nature of white's game from the starting position will ultimately be revealed!!"
Saying chess is a forced win for white is identical in shock value to saying it's a draw. Both have equal shock value, since either one is unknowable at the moment. I can say with extreme confidence chess is a forced win for white. Probably the exact same confidence others say it's a draw.
As for the bet you propose, 20 years ago I probably would have done it. It would take a lot of liquid courage for me to do it now.
tygxc wrote:
#9727
"Chess is a forced win for white"
++ No, not at all. Chess is a draw, but black has more ways to err than white.
White can afford to lose a tempo, then white is just black: 1 e3 e5 2 e4, draw
Black can afford to lose a tempo: 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8, draw
White can afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1, still draw
Black cannot afford to lose 2 tempi: 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 Nb8 should win for white.
"But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins."
++ No, there still will be black wins: to err is human and humans will still err as white.
Look at the last classical world championship Carlsen - Nepo:
7 draws, 2 white wins, 2 black wins
"It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found."
++ No, there is no white win, so it will not and cannot be found.
I wasn't talking about humans erring. Of course there will still be black wins when humans play. I was talking about chess at the highest levels. Not world champion human players.
I'm only guessing at the time frame for discovering the forced win. It might take 10 years, it might take 100, it might take 1,000. I'm guessing about 200 because at the rate of improvement, and the rate of whites win percentage increasing it seems reasonable that's about when the draw rate maximum and the black win rate minimum will converge.
#9733
"I'm only guessing at the time frame for discovering the forced win."
++ What makes you think a forced win exists at all? There is no evidence. There is a lot of evidence of the contrary: no forced win exists and chess is a draw. You can just as well say it will take 200 years to discover a unicorn.
"I'm guessing about 200 because at the rate of improvement, and the rate of whites win percentage increasing it seems reasonable that's about when the draw rate maximum and the black win rate minimum will converge."
++ Huh? What kind of math do you use? The draw rate always goes up with more time / higher play level. There is no maximum draw rate: it approaches 100%. The white win rate shrinks with more time / higher level and the black win rate shrinks even more with more time / higher level.
The reason is that white has more room to err than black: an error of a tempo that loses for black does not lose for white as white is a tempo up to start with.
tygxc wrote:
#9733
"I'm only guessing at the time frame for discovering the forced win."
++ What makes you think a forced win exists at all? There is no evidence. There is a lot of evidence of the contrary: no forced win exists and chess is a draw. You can just as well say it will take 200 years to discover a unicorn.
"I'm guessing about 200 because at the rate of improvement, and the rate of whites win percentage increasing it seems reasonable that's about when the draw rate maximum and the black win rate minimum will converge."
++ Huh? What kind of math do you use? The draw rate always goes up with more time / higher play level. There is no maximum draw rate: it approaches 100%. The white win rate shrinks with more time / higher level and the black win rate shrinks even more with more time / higher level.
The reason is that white has more room to err than black: an error of a tempo that loses for black does not lose for white as white is a tempo up to start with.
Well, I think white wins because white has the first move advantage. And white wins more than black. So that's evidence.
I doesn't make much sense to say there is no evidence for white having a forced win. That would be like saying since every game is not a draw, there is no evidence that chess is a draw.
We agree on one thing though, there is no maximum draw rate. I rounded it off to 99%, but it could be 99.99% or 99.999% but it will never be 100% because chess is not a draw. I said the convergence of maximum draw rate (whatever that rate may be) will probably happen about the same time as when (at the highest levels) black doesn't win anymore. So there will be some undetermined amount of time between the realization black can never win and white always wins.
I assume there will be setbacks between now and 200 years from now. Civilization collapse, natural disasters, technological priorities, etc. But your third paragraph sums it up nicely. The more time, the more white win rate shrinks (as expected for the foreseeable future) but blacks win rate shrinks even MORE. I would expect that trend to continue for many, many decades until the solution is found.
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
tygxc wrote:
#9722
"would you say when time is multiplied by 60 that white wins far more often than black?"
++ Yes.
We also see that in ICCF world championship at 5 days/move, engines allowed
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745
136 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins
Chess is a draw, but the path to the draw is wider for white and narrower for black.
That makes sense, for now. Chess is a forced win for white, but the path narrows as time goes by. As computers get better, we will see the draw rate increase and we will also see (what you showed) the rate of white wins increase.
So eventually, maybe 100 years from now, the draw rate will be something like 99%, the white win rate will be something like 99% of non draws, and people will mostly agree that chess is a draw or win for white.
But 200 years from now at the highest level there will be no black wins. At all.
It will probably take 300 years before the forced white win is found.
Just a point. I know you're only playing with people and I have faith in your intelligence, which I doubt is misplaced.
So you use this "chess is a forced win for white" spiel for shock effect. Even so, it may be possible to maintain that effect and yet phrase it in such a way that you aren't so obviously pretending to know something you cannot possibly know. Leaving aside the possibly objectionable reason that it's simply incorrect, I know that it's impossible for you to have the evidence that chess is a forced win from the starting position. I mean, you wouldn't bet the clothes you're standing up in on the result of it, if you were in a crowded place, so you don't know it and only state that you do know it to achieve an effect on your readership.
See this space next week for more on "the forcibly winning nature of white's game from the starting position will ultimately be revealed!!"
Saying chess is a forced win for white is identical in shock value to saying it's a draw. Both have equal shock value, since either one is unknowable at the moment. I can say with extreme confidence chess is a forced win for white. Probably the exact same confidence others say it's a draw.
As for the bet you propose, 20 years ago I probably would have done it. It would take a lot of liquid courage for me to do it now.
I nearly said I wish I'd known you then but then I thought I wouldn't want a girlfriend of mine to do that. Then, I recalled that I was with Christine 20 years ago and I believe you were married too. What would husband have said?
You have a very, very good memory. Husband would have said don't lose the bet. But if you do, make sure there is no photo evidence.
Whether it's the beach in Puerto Vallarta, Jamaica, or Key West, I've always wondered if there is evidence out there somewhere of me "losing the bet". I know for sure it's out there from Martinique.
#9736
"white has the first move advantage"
++ Yes, that is true: white is 1 tempo ahead. We know from gambits that 1 pawn = 3 tempi. 1 pawn is enough to win: queen the pawn. 1/3 pawn is not enough to win.
"white wins more than black."
++ Yes, that is true, it is because black has more ways to make an error than white.
As quoted above: AlphaZero autoplay:
1 s/move: 88.2% draw, 7.72% white wins, 4.09% black wins
1 min/move: 97.9% draw, 1.8% white wins, 0.3% black wins
Extrapolating this:
1 h/move: 99.56% draw, 0.42% white wins, 0.02% black wins
60 h/move: 99.90% draw, 0.1% white wins, 0.002% black wins
150 d/move: 99.98% draw, 0.02% white wins, 0.0001% black wins
25 a/move: 99.99% draw, 0.005% white wins, 0.000009% black wins
1500 a/move: 99.999% draw, 0.001% white wins, 0.0000006% black wins
hi !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
some ppl like myself just like to talk s/t's & listen...i hope ur not getting ur hopes out that were gonna solve the 4eva question...cuz idf its gonna get there.
Enlightenment bears repeating. Thanks Lola.
Jun 13, 2022
0
#8357
As I have always maintained, the opening position in chess is a very subtle zugzwang. So with perfect play Black wins.
Jun 13, 2022
0
#8358
Optimissed wrote:
Very funny but it's been done before!
I hate it when people steal my jokes in advance. (Dang it, I did think of it myself, I swear.)
I guess that's a cruel twist of fate. There were hardly any cameras around when there should have been. And now, when nobody wants to see that, cameras are everywhere.
some ppl like myself just like to talk s/t's & listen...i hope ur not getting ur hopes out that were gonna solve the 4eva question...cuz idf its gonna get there.