The perfect game of chess.
Sort:
...i think you taking the other persons queen in the first 10 moves
Seriously.
i think that a perfect game is one that ends in a draw with kings left standing in the center of the board. the blood of their minions spilled, their queens put to rest. they both reach for their swords but cannot reach each other. truly perfect
If they ever solve chess it would be fun if the starting position turns out to be a zugzwang position (not very likely but hey, you never know)
If both players played perfectly, white would always win because theyre always one move ahead of black.
Ace1Shadow wrote:
If both players played perfectly, white would always win because theyre always one move ahead of black.
Not true. Until we see chess solved we'll probably never know if this is the case but most people agree that with perfect play a chess game is always drawn.
I still think it'd be much more fun if the initial position turns out to be a zugzwang position so that with perfect play black always win.
Never heard of such a thing. What is this "perfect game" you speak of. Let's not hear of such nonsense :-)
it seems everyone in the thread interpret it a bit different. I assumed it was a game where both sides make perfect moves.
neneko wrote: If they ever solve chess it would be fun if the starting position turns out to be a zugzwang position (not very likely but hey, you never know)
"Interesting game: the only winning move is not to play." 
It's impossible. There are so many openings and combinations that there cannot be just ONE that is better than another. Only after the very first move is can the perfect game defined...but to calculate perfection, then there must be a perfect standard set...and I am assuming that it should be a time restriction. SO...given a time restriction after the first move, there's a limited number of combinations that can be done in order to preform a checkmate...and I suppose that the victor should also be chosen before hand (remember, in order for something to be Perfect, it must meet predifined standard of perfection). THEREFORE. An example of an expectation would be: 5 minutes, 1.c4, black wins. Aha! A game that can conform to these standards would be considered the perfect game.
wow...now I am as well in the search for it! I got way too into this.
Isn't the perfect game of chess the one where I win?
I was thinking about something along the lines of endgame tables for solving chess. Theoritcaly you could make them up to 32-men table bases. Wich would cover the starting position and thus show the exact moves that lead to a win. In reality though already the 7-men tablebases take up several terrabyte (or is 6-men table bases the biggest one they've made? I'm not that updated on this) so we're far from being able to make a tablebase that big.
a true perfect game would mean that for every atack that white has, there is an equally good defense. even if that defense is a counterattack. at some point there would have to be a trade of pieces and that would be it. two kings in the center with no one around
Apr 30, 2008
0
#15
i got the full nalimov tablebases for 6 pices and its composed by 9 full DVDs thats arround 44 GB.
From the perspective of game theory, it seems easier to contemplate a sieve, of sorts, in which all games enter, but only some come out the other side. Clearly, no loss can be a perfect game, so these games do not pass through St. Peter's gates. But beyond that, it is instructive to see at what point in the game the victor had a winning strategy (as in, playing a certain way guarantees a victory, no matter what the other side does). Then all games from this point onward are excluded, as they are flawed (from the perspective of whichever side lost). We may never know which side, if either, has a winning strategy initially.
I believe that you probably come to a point were both sides are in a position were the only logic is to choose a pattern that ultimately leads to the same position, and both players run in circles, tieing by 3 move rep or 50 move rule. I almost bet that the prefect game does not even reach end game (or to most, seeing that there can be more than one). But there is no way to prove that. It's just the most likly result I see.
How can the perfect result be a draw ? What has been achieved ?
If you're willing to settle for a draw then that's OK, but surely the perfect game needs to have a better result then a draw !
So in my personal opinion a perfect game has to be one sided because the victor has played a perfect game while the loser has not !
According to wikipedia The 6 piece tablebase was completed in 2006 and the 7 piece table base may be completed by 2015 (wiki gives this reference).
If we have a lot of faith in the people who work on these things and are very generous to them, let's say the time it takes to calculate each tablebase is three times as long as the previous one and the 7 piece one takes 5 years. Then the 8 piece one would take 15 years, 9 pieces would take 45 etc. Then it would take 5*3^25 + 5*3^24 + ... + 5*3 = 6,354,664,570,815 years to calculate 8 through 32. That's more than 400 times longer than the universe has existed. So, don't hold your breath.
I was bored for a while today, and somewhere in my crazy train of thought carried me to think: What would a perfect game of chess be like? Would black defend or counterattack? Would the sides be used to get major pieces into battle? Would tou finachetto your bishop?
Thoughts?