In article dyDCh.3716$2w.1172@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

Players overconcentrate their study with what to do with the white pieces,
and this imbalanced study coupled with received expectations of what to do
with white or black, creates a self-fulfilling result.

I disagree. I think people spend more time studying what to do with the
black pieces - because it's harder, because if they don't know what
they're doing with black, they can lose quickly.

I've certainly spent more time studying specific openings with the black
pieces.

But after 1.e4, which side actually choses the opening? If the Sicilian is
played, which side choses the sub-variation, to play the Taimanov or Pelikan
vars?

But here, of course, you're skipped over a lot of choices. I could have
been just as facetious by saying, "who chooses to play the Smith-Morra,
or the Grand Prix attack?"

Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted, or can it be shown to be
unprovable?

But not all false statements are easily refuted.

There is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the
opening position is better for white. Namely, the consistently higher
winning percentage of white, combined with the fact that developed
theory - a huge amount of practical knowledge - shows a fairly
persistent white advantage.

So for the statement "black always wins" to be true, there'd have to be
some huge, paradigm-shifting understanding of the game of chess.

The fact that we can't prove it isn't so doesn't mean it's a reasonable
proposition.

-Ron

On Feb 20, 5:02 am, David Richerby
wrote:
wrote:
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

No, because the initial position can never arise with black to move.
Nobody knows if it's a zugzwang for White.

That is faulty logic. It is not necessary for the initial
position to be able to occur with Black to move in order
for the initial position to be a mutual zugzwang. For
example, the position after 1.h4 could win perforce,
yet even if Black could, for whatever reason, never
achieve this same situation (which he can, BTW), it by
no means would prove that Black cannot win perforce by
some *other* route. This sort of faulty logic plagues the
pundits who so often try to pretend they know all the
answers, when they clearly do not even clearly
comprehend the questions!

-- help bot

On 20 Feb 2007 10:01:48 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
wrote:

Ray Johnstone wrote:
wrote:
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

We will probably never know. See:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm

Just because chess is likely impossible to brute-force doesn't mean we
can never know the outcome of theoretical best play. For example, it
is known that the game of `chomp' is a theoretical win for the first
player but nobody knows how to force the win except in very simple
cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomp


Dave.
I agree, which is why I said "probably". I can't imagine any method
other than brute force but I couldn't have imagined calculus, Newton's
laws...


www.iinet.com.au/~ray

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 19, 11:12 pm, "Jason__911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

If that were the case, i think you'd see black win a higher % of the time
instead of white, no?

Assumes perfect or near-perfect play by humans

Not at all simpleton. You're the one making the assumptions here. Mistakes
will be made by those playing both the black and white sides so they
effectively cancel out when a large enough statistical sample is used. I
know this is over your head "help boy", and who exactly are you "helping"
with your useless postings anyway?\

If after tens of thousands of games white is winning by a greater margin,
then statistically white has the advantage. This is obvious to any high
school graduate. Sorry that leaves you out.

ps, I've mated both Kevin (on the board), and his late wife (off the
board)

FYI: Having sexual relations with a male....

FYI, how incredibly dumb do you have to be to not understand the phrase "on
the board" you degenerate faggot?

You're a useless piece of **** that's of no help to anyone, "help boy".

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 19, 11:12 pm, "Jason__911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

If that were the case, i think you'd see black win a higher % of the time
instead of white, no?

Assumes perfect or near-perfect play by humans

Not at all simpleton. You're the one making the assumptions here. Mistakes
will be made by those playing both the black and white sides so they
effectively cancel out when a large enough statistical sample is used. I
know this is over your head "help boy", and who exactly are you "helping"
with your useless postings anyway?\

If after tens of thousands of games white is winning by a greater margin,
then statistically white has the advantage. This is obvious to any high
school graduate. Sorry that leaves you out.

ps, I've mated both Kevin (on the board), and his late wife (off the
board)

FYI: Having sexual relations with a male....

FYI, how incredibly dumb do you have to be to not understand the phrase "on
the board" you degenerate faggot?

You're a useless piece of **** that's of no help to anyone, "help boy".

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 20, 5:02 am, David Richerby
wrote:
wrote:
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

No, because the initial position can never arise with black to move.
Nobody knows if it's a zugzwang for White.

That is faulty logic.

No, you're the idiot with the faulty logic "help boy". Anyone with a 7 year
old's level of reading comprehension would have understood what he said. The
initial position can NEVER arise with black to move. What part of that is
too complicated for your pea brain to grasp? The other thing he said was
that nobody knows if it's a zugzwang for white. And that is technically
true, although statistics suggest otherwise, we cannot KNOW if white is for
certain "better" for having the first move or in zugzwang. Again, help
bitch, what part of that simple statement is too complex for you to
understand?

JMR

Ray Johnstone wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Ray Johnstone wrote:
wrote:
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

We will probably never know. See:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm

Just because chess is likely impossible to brute-force doesn't mean we
can never know the outcome of theoretical best play. [...]

I agree, which is why I said "probably".

OK. Your web page seems a little more certain than that, though.


I can't imagine any method other than brute force but I couldn't
have imagined calculus, Newton's laws...

:-) Strategy-stealing (as used in chomp) is the usual way to produce
a proof that one player can force a win without knowing how to do it.
But that doesn't apply to chess because there's no first move that
white can make that is equivalent to passing.

One possibility would be to come up with a proof along the following
lines. Somehow, classify positions as `good' or `bad' and produce a
score for each position that is a positive integer, such that every
position where White has given checkmate is scored 1 and all other
positions have scores greater than one. If you could then show that
the initial position is `good' and that, furthermore, whenever White
is in a `good' position, he has at least one move such that every one
of Black's replies leaves the game in another `good' position with a
strictly lower score, you would have shown that, with best play, chess
is a forced win for White.

(The point of the `good' positions is that the scoring function can
behave arbitrarily on bad positions without affecting the argument.)


Also, there is an error in your web page. You write,

``Suppose White wins a particular game [with perfect play] which
began with say a3. Consider Black's last unforced move. All
other moves at that branch point must also lead to mate in as many
moves or fewer or Black would have chosen one of them in
preference. This argument applies at every branch point so all
games starting with a3 must then be wins for White. Games
starting with the other 19 possible moves are of little
consequence. They could all be wins for the unfortunate Black,
who would never get to play them.

``Black's prospects are therefore rather gloomier: to win any game
it is necessary that every game be a win for Black.''
-- http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm

First, there's the unimportant point that, in perfect play, the
concept of a move being forced or not doesn't really exist: the whole
point of saying that all perfect games are won for White is that it
really doesn't matter what Black plays. Since he has no hope of
winning, it doesn't really make much sense to assert that avoiding a
mate in one to allow a mate in ten is `forced'. But that doesn't
really matter.

There are two copies of the same problem in these two paragraphs. You
say that ``... all games starting with a3 must then be wins for
White''. This is not true. All you can conclude is that all games in
which White plays a3 and then continues to play perfectly are wins for
White. There are plenty of games starting with 1.a3 that are losses
for White. For example, 1.a3 a6 2.f3 e5 3.g4?? Qh4#.

The same problem occurs in the second paragraph. Black only has to
win the games in which he plays perfectly: the other games are, as you
have observed, of no relevance. This means that he must have a
winning reply to each of White's 20 possible first moves but that's
not really so much worse than White's situation because, if chess is a
win for White, he must have a winning reply to each of Black's 20
possible first moves, too!

Apologies if this all sounds rather pedantic -- I'm reading
rec.games.chess.* while I'm supposed to be writing an academic paper
on game theory. ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Generic Portable Robot (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but you can
take it anywhere and it's just like
all the others!

"Ron" wrote in message
...
In article dyDCh.3716$2w.1172@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

Players overconcentrate their study with what to do with the white
pieces,
and this imbalanced study coupled with received expectations of what to
do
with white or black, creates a self-fulfilling result.

I disagree. I think people spend more time studying what to do with the
black pieces - because it's harder, because if they don't know what
they're doing with black, they can lose quickly.

While that is sensible, it appears not to be universal practice.

I've certainly spent more time studying specific openings with the black
pieces.

Me too.

But after 1.e4, which side actually choses the opening? If the Sicilian
is
played, which side choses the sub-variation, to play the Taimanov or
Pelikan
vars?

But here, of course, you're skipped over a lot of choices. I could have
been just as facetious by saying, "who chooses to play the Smith-Morra,
or the Grand Prix attack?"

Sure - but against what? A GrandPrix can be played against a Sicilian
[black's choice] but not against a French [black's choice] or a Russian
opening [black's choice]. The simple point is that black is chosing the
opening, then subsequently the players collude on the variation. It is not
even entirely dependent on white's first move, since the English Defence [+
varieties of hedgehog] can be played against almost anything, and with
hardly any difference how you order your moves, e6, b6, Bb7...

Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted, or can it be shown to
be
unprovable?

But not all false statements are easily refuted.

! Since we have a specific, is there a specific answer, or do we hide in
generalities - what is the sense of 'easily' in your comment?

The questions I pose are of different natures, and of interest to
logicians - the trouble with chess is that both questions seem to be
unknown!

There is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the
opening position is better for white. Namely, the consistently higher
winning percentage of white, combined with the fact that developed
theory - a huge amount of practical knowledge - shows a fairly
persistent white advantage.

But you eliminated the likely cause of this from my post [which are really
the comments of Adorjan] - which are expectations from both white and black
player. Do you understand this pyschology, which has sociological outcome:-

In USA 1860 all doctors were male, in 2000 55% of graduating MDs were
female. A sociology! And another one based on a negative expectation, 'that
women would not like the sight of blood'.

So for the statement "black always wins" to be true, there'd have to be
some huge, paradigm-shifting understanding of the game of chess.

I think if you look at my question, it does /not/ ask for proof of black
always wins, but asks if there is a /refutation/ of black always wins. You
comment on the current sociology of chess, which I suppose is as valid a
comment as if it were 1860 in medicine. So when a huge paradigm-shift does
occur, what then is the answer after the shift has occured?

The fact that we can't prove it isn't so doesn't mean it's a reasonable
proposition.

I haven't asked for whatever 'reasonable proposition' means in your
sentence. (What does it mean, BTW?) I asked two specifics:

a) Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted?
or
b) can it be shown to be unprovable?

I know they are hard questions, and its okay to say 'dunno', but changing
the question is avoidance. Both questions reveal something about the
state-of-the-art in 'solving chess' as well as in complex games theory.

Phil Innes


-Ron

In article 5MXCh.4112$2w.1396@trndny09,
"Chess One" wrote:

There is a great deal of evidence which strongly suggests that the
opening position is better for white. Namely, the consistently higher
winning percentage of white, combined with the fact that developed
theory - a huge amount of practical knowledge - shows a fairly
persistent white advantage.

But you eliminated the likely cause of this from my post [which are really
the comments of Adorjan] - which are expectations from both white and black
player. Do you understand this pyschology, which has sociological outcome:-

I understand the principle, I just happen to think it's irrelevant in
this case. You (or, rather, Adorjan) are assuming a possible reason for
black's poorer results, and then, without any evidence are asserting it
to be true.

I think there's a much simpler reason for black's worse results: white
is better. Talk any mainline position, eight moves in. Heck, even the
ones which are theoretically equal (say, some QGD stuff, or Italian Game
stuff) are much easier for white to play. It's equal because, with best
play, black gets a draw - but black has plenty of places to go wrong
compared to white, and much bigger practical problems.

In USA 1860 all doctors were male, in 2000 55% of graduating MDs were
female. A sociology! And another one based on a negative expectation, 'that
women would not like the sight of blood'.

I think you're trivializing a major sociological trend. The issue with
women in the workplace has always been one of opportunity as much as it
has been one of expectation.

a) Can the statement, "black always wins" be refuted?
or
b) can it be shown to be unprovable?

I know they are hard questions, and its okay to say 'dunno', but changing
the question is avoidance. Both questions reveal something about the
state-of-the-art in 'solving chess' as well as in complex games theory.

Fine:

I don't know, and I don't particularly care.

On Feb 21, 3:18 am, "Jason 911" wrote:

Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang?

If that were the case, i think you'd see black win a higher % of the time
instead of white, no?

Assumes perfect or near-perfect play by humans

Not at all simpleton.

Ad hominem diversionary tactic noted. Obviously, the
creature imagines it is dealing with readers who may be
described as "simpletons", like himself. I expect some,
if not many, of our readers are in fact able to distinguish
between mere ad hominem and *rational* discussion.


If after tens of thousands of games white is winning by a greater margin,
then statistically white has the advantage.

Indeed, the original question had naught to do with statistics
or even with practical play, but was, I think, pertaining to the
idea of *perfect play* by both sides. It was, in effect, a
theoretical question pertaining to the concept of such play.
Even so, I have no problem with discussing the purely
practical aspects relating to the question.


ps, I've mated both Kevin (on the board), and his late wife (off the
board)

FYI: Having sexual relations with a male....

FYI, how incredibly dumb do you have to be to not understand the phrase "on
the board" you degenerate faggot?

Just *where* the creature that calls itself Jason Repa conducts his
"affairs" is of no concern to me; I prefer to focus upon the poster's
question, and not get sidetracked by the bizarre, the kinky.

--------

Having disposed of that, I would like to point out that, were we to
compile a large database of games played between strong chess
programs, even so we would not be able to address the poster's
true question, for what we might learn would pertain only to our
programming methodology, our *limited* understanding of chess
as translated into a chess program.

What is really needed is a complete understanding of the game,
such as might one day be approximated by massive tablebases,
combined with super-deep tactical searching and ordering of the
legal possibilities in the openings. At this point, it seems more
practical to sort through what little we do know, and try to get
some idea as to our limitations. A man's got to know his
limitations.

-- help bot