I would assume there are fewer positions than moves. I've been out of the chess programming game since the 80s but I have to think inspecting the most likely positions would be the quickest way to solve chess.

When evaluating card counting 8 deck shoe it becomes clear that 99%+ of the shoe rank distributions will never be encountered. I'm thinking it would be similar in chess, but to a much higher degree.

Carlsen finished in the money in 25th place.

https://en.pokerpro.cc/news/magnus-c...mpion-454.html

Most wouldn’t considered opposing Jen s blunder as luck

What is it then? Players get distracted, time pressure, mental fatigue all play into increasing chance of mistakes. If my opponent blunders for some external reason then I benefit fortunately. I think most would call that "luck".

Chess is such a complex game that there cannot be more than one move that is exactly the same and equally good as another. Even if one move is 50.0000000000000000000000001 better than the other it is still better and if making a certain move allows the other player to win (when they could not before) how can it be the best move?

I think in rereading your post I think you are saying that since no one can always know the best move to make (because the game is too complex) then luck plays a part because you are lucky if your opponent makes a mistake before you do. That is an entirely different discussion. It would be the same as playing a cash game where you both have unlimited funds. Eventually the luck involved re what cards are dealt evens out and the winner will be the one who makes the fewest mistakes. Of course almost every game of chess is decided by who makes the fewest mistakes and there were times I might a slightly inferior play in chess because I wanted to make the board as complex as possible as I knew that I would process the position better than my opponent.

That is also true of almost any game that has any element of skill involved such as something as simple as Tic Tac Toe. In order to win I most count on my opponent to make a mistake.

This is my last post on the subject, it no longer interests me, lol.

Poker is a game of luck, chess is not. But chess has luck brought into it by the players.

What's the single best move for white?



What if there are two different moves that lead to forced mate in 15? What if there's also a mate in 17, is that worse than mate in 15? We win either way.

I believe the person I was responding to used the example of tic-tac-toe. What's the best first move for X if O can force a draw no matter what? If chess is ever solved, who's to say there won't be equivalent moves similar to tic-tac-toe? Maybe if 1. e4, I can force a draw with either e5 or c5.

Maybe you can get more than 1 point if you are able to identify the best checkmate?

"Blunder" means a move that the player would not ordinarily make. Computers don't do that. But even computers, even the very best ones, are theoretically subject to luck. Stockfish will only draw, or maybe even lose, to a chimp, at least once in a 100 trillion googol times.

Well it is not part of the game. There is no luck in tic tac toe. There is no luck in checkers. Same for chess. There can be luck when playing these games but it is not ‘built into the game’.

Poker has luck or randomness built in. All the card games I know do. The very fact we start the game by randomizing the cards means the game involves luck. We don’t shuffle the positions of the pieces in chess.

A perfectly played chess game would be boring. The outcome would be the same every time. Even if there were multiple equally optimal moves in the game, no matter which path is chosen the end result would be the same. We don’t know what this perfect chess game is but we know that luck is not built into it.

IIRC the Pentium chip was known for incorrect floating point errors, on the order of one in about 100 billion. Just bringing it up because computers make errors a lot more often than you might think. CPUs get hot, they get interfered with by EMR, they incur static electricity, etc. Memory, CPU, peripherals, all involve some propensity for error. Of course there are parity bits and other redundancies built in to reduce this.

I know of no game that can be completely isolated from external factors. Recall when Kasparov cheated against Polgar, or when Fisher insisted on several external demands in his 1972 championship against Spassky. The primary difference between poker and chess is that poker involves asymmetric information, while chess does not.

There is a theoretically perfect play in chess, but not a perfect "player".

The game of chess has no luck built in. The players playing chess definitely bring a luck or randomness factor. The theoretically is a perfect chess game. It might have multiple yet equal paths. This perfect game is probably a draw with small chance white always wins and a minuscule chance that black wins. But this perfect game has not been identified and definitely never played. There are random factors the players bring to their matches but those will 8moact tepee match results they’d are not part of the defined game.

Giri: Kf7!

I would move the king forward (King to F3), the only people who should cause death are those who are themselves prepared to die

+1, think most chess players are pretty underdeveloped comparatively

I heard Magnus farted audibly at the table during this tournament … can anyone confirm?

king to f7 would be stalemate and the worst possible move for white

lol thanks for pointing this out

What do you think of Qc8 instead?

A bm move trying to show that you can win with just a rook. Still forces mate in a handful of moves and is better than stalemate.



And ladder mate is the best mate so Ra8# is absolutely the superior move. Qd7# is for noobs.

Qa8# is the best mate, since it is the only pure mate.

I wonder what I was thinking when I made this post, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Chess has way too many etiquette rules. Poker keeps it simple. No sandbagging, no women, and no guns.