The First Move Advantage Poker, Chess and Game Theory

[TomCowley]

Originally Posted by valenzuela

Thats because the second player is able to force a zugzwang.

That's a silly comment. Obviously, in a 2-player alternating turn game, if it's a win for player 2, then the starting position is zugzwang.

[valenzuela]

Originally Posted by TomCowley

That's a silly comment. Obviously, in a 2-player alternating turn game, if it's a win for player 2, then the starting position is zugzwang.

right

[PyramidScheme]

A little derail but on my death bed i will be insisting chess is a forced win for White.

[Kingdom Hearts]

Originally Posted by PyramidScheme

A little derail but on my death bed i will be insisting chess is a forced win for White.

I disagree, I've never heard of any game in which black played perfectly and lost. I've heard of games where white played perfectly but drew anyway. But maybe the level we've reached even with the strongest programs isn't nearly as strong as it could be. Who knows. It took nearly 20 years to solve the game of checkers. Chess is so much more complex than checkers. But in checkers, if God were to play God, the game would end in a draw all the time.

[Montrealcorp]

Originally Posted by PyramidScheme

A little derail but on my death bed i will be insisting chess is a forced win for White.

I never heard yet ,from someone thinking its a force win for white , how its a win for white when the majority of opening show black equalize in most opening after 25 moves.

Theory shows that as the game drag on , white advantage diminish if black doesnt make a mistake ....
Imo there is no logic in : after black reach equality near 30 moves , white find a force win out of nowhere for no reason ???

If it was a force win for white , in the majority of game played , black would rarely find a equalizing move .... But on the contrary , in post mortem game , often we can find a move from black that equalize the game..

So unless u can explain how to counter this argument.. I see no reason expecting white find a force win for no reason at all?

[Kingdom Hearts]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

I never heard yet ,from someone thinking its a force win for white , how its a win for white when the majority of opening show black equalize in most opening after 25 moves.

Theory shows that as the game drag on , white advantage diminish if black doesnt make a mistake ....
Imo there is no logic in : after black reach equality near 30 moves , white find a force win out of nowhere for no reason ???

If it was a force win for white , in the majority of game played , black would rarely find a equalizing move .... But on the contrary , in post mortem game , often we can find a move from black that equalize the game..

So unless u can explain how to counter this argument.. I see no reason expecting white find a force win for no reason at all?

I'm pretty sure the forced win for white would be achieved by a precized order of moves in the opening. There would be a perfect opening for white in which black simply couldn't defend... But there would be so much possibilities that it would be humanly impossible to memorise everything perhaps ?

[Do it Right]

Originally Posted by Kingdom Hearts

...But maybe the level we've reached even with the strongest programs isn't nearly as strong as it could be.

Setup a nontrivial endgame that you can solve using endgame table bases. Then let Houdini start going through it. It will almost invariably blunder away the game at some point. If it can't hold games with 5 pieces on the board, it's safe to assume that its play with 32 pieces on the board is rather horrific, at least in comparison to perfect play.

But I doubt we'll be seeing any more major improvements in chess AI anytime soon. We're nowhere even remotely close to being able to solve chess, yet programs can already beat every human on the planet. I imagine motivation, and thus progress, will continue to fade.

[KyleJRM82]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

I never heard yet ,from someone thinking its a force win for white , how its a win for white when the majority of opening show black equalize in most opening after 25 moves.

That equality is an opinion and not an objective fact.

[All-inMcLovin]

Originally Posted by Noir_Desir

while this might be true, i think it's more because of evaluation bias of chess authors than due to an underlying principle that favours black.

obv

[DON CASTI]

about OP, many things come to mind:

1. In poker, "black" (or 2nd player to act) has more information before making the move.
2. One of the problem to bet(act) first is the re-raise, move that is not in chess (again, info issues already mentioned by smilingbill).
3. Its from the begginers of chess that before attacking u need to develop the pieces, so white should finish development first (and so, is ready to attack first).
4. In chess, in an equalized position both players are looking for the same.
Let's make a simple example: gaining space in the centre. So white plays 1.e4.
Now, (without going through opening theory, very basic idea...) black wants the same, but by playing 1. ... e5 he's inviting white to lead with 2.Nf3 attacking the pawn.
Now black has to defendit with 2. ... Nc6; Result: white has the iniciative (is attacking and playing for a win) and black is defending and trying to equalize (going for a draw).
Ok, so instead of defending (2. ... Nc6) let's counterplay (like a re-raise) and let's play 2. ... Nf6, attacking white's pawn. Well, black is not going to be able to do that much longer cause after taking on e5 (3. Nxe5), 3 ... Nxe4 is a mistake.
5. In chess, players have (start with) the same pieces, while in poker they dont: they have always different cards. So "black" can have a better hand and re-raise; no such thing in chess.