Originally posted by PatzerLarsIdeally yes you are right. Theoretically the game of chess will end up with a draw or white to win if neither party makes mistake. Why? It doesn't really matter how many trillions possible positions may occur at end of a game after white makes it first move, but the possibilities are still finite. Something that finite we can count and we can trace. Today, even our super computers could not reach to that level yet although they are getting closer.
If player A wins over player B it only means that A did less mistakes (in quantity and/or quality) than B. You can't deduce anything intelligent out of this fact in terms of the question what Chess "is" (logic and/or knowledge).
A better question would be what causes B to make more mistakes than A. It could be lack of knowledge, it could be lack of log ...[text shortened]... of visualisation, or lack of concentration, lack of calmness etc. etc. etc. thousand reasons.
Practical way to reword you argument is if A beats B than A less prone to make mistake. Not all mistakes are blundered. Most of them are forced mistakes. Most of GMs games are forced mistakes. What does it mean by forced mistake? The doer does not know it is a mistake until he gets punished. If you don't know that you make mistake how you are going to prevent it? In chess we have many sets of structured logics that we call the knowledge. They can help you so that you are less prone to make mistake. Even you do make small mistake your opponent may not able to see it so you will not get punished. If you make 3 mistakes 7 out of 10 of your opponents may able to see and to take advantage of them.
"If player A wins over player B it only means that A did less mistakes."
___________________________________________________________
It is not the player who makes the most mistakes that losses the game.
It the person who made the last mistake who losses the game.
Chess is a game of knowledge and experience.
The more you play the better you become.
The interesting question is....
In the above case because 'A' beat 'B' does that mean that 'A' is a
better chess player than 'B'?
Going on the knoweldge that 'A' just beat 'B' we can say
that 'A' is the better player.
However with every game 'B' is getting better.
Everyone appears to agree that we learn more from our losses.
So everytime 'B' plays 'A' and losses he is getting better.
There will come a time when 'B' will be as good as 'A'.
Unless of course inbetween games with 'B' , 'A' is playing 'C' and losing to him.
So 'A' too is getting better as well and 'B' will never catch him up.
'C' gets better by losing to 'D'. 'D' gets better by losing to 'E'.
This goes right on till you meet 'Z'.
Poor 'Z' has nobody who can beat him so never gets any better.
'Soon 'Y' will catch him up and 'X' will catch up 'Y' and so on.
I predict in 217 years time everyone will be as good as everyone else
and all games will be drawn.
I scanned a few of the posts. I didn't see any mention of it so...
They have done studies of grandmasters vs us patsies. When they put out a position in front of masters and patsies- the masters could remember where more pieces were placed. But, when they changed it to an irrational position(ie one that wouldn't show up in any sort of game) the masters were equal to the patsies.
One major point is that the master remembered the more pieces in the real positions. But, the master remembered the same amount of clusters (ie the master sees queenside castle iqp etc while the amateur sees king on b1 rook on c1 and pawn on d4 etc....). Essentially the master is working with large words/sentences while the amateur pieces together a bunch of letters.
If you are really interested in this question an excellent book to read is
http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/B0040RMEGM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289178991&sr=8-1
Obviously not just about chess. But, there is life outside of chess.
Obviously chicken is better than beef.
Chess is ultimately a game of logic. Throw two players into a position that they have no knowledge of (like a Fischer Random) and you will see why it is a game of logic first and a game of knowledge second.
There is a base-level of knowledge you need to have in order to play the game (how the pieces move and so-forth) but after that, with excellent logic you don't necessarily need to have the knowledge of endgame or opening principals, just a keen imagination and a calculating mind.
Edit: Knowledge and experience trumps inexperience and lack of knowledge but I firmly believe that sound logical chess can trump experience in the right cases.
Unfortunately since the game is never Fischer Random I do think that knowledge plays an extreme role in the rise of many grandmasters.
So, after rethinking, I'd like to say that logic>knowledge because really all knowledge comes from logic does it not?
Edit 2:
So perhaps it is the comprehension of the logic behind the knowledge which is the most important to understand in order to be the best chess player you can be. Some logic from one position can transfer into another one and so it is not entirely about the memorization of positions and move sequences since these sequences do follow a form of logic.
Originally posted by ChessJesteryou are more logical as u gain more experience and see more positions and structures(which you actually understand).
Obviously chicken is better than beef.
Chess is ultimately a game of logic. Throw two players into a position that they have no knowledge of (like a Fischer Random) and you will see why it is a game of logic first and a game of knowledge second.
There is a base-level of knowledge you need to have in order to play the game (how the pieces move and memorization of positions and move sequences since these sequences do follow a form of logic.
Even in a fischer random chess the stronger player wins because he understands the game better. But, that understanding comes from examples of pawn majorities, hanging pawns piece activity, holes, good versus bad pieces etc.
So basically you gain more logic as you gain more knowledge. But, as you gain more logic(if you can really improve that) you don't necessarily gain more knowledge.
All in all it doesn't really matter. Learn endgames, pawn structures and their strengths and weaknesses, theoritical endgames, strategic endgames, opening principles and theory eventually, strategies like prophylaxis, initiative etc and probably most of all your ability to calculate. Let the philosiphers philosiphize why we are good or bad.
and hopefully the grammar police isn't out today.
Originally posted by ChessJesterI think my opinion is the same opinion as yours. If we can select either one as what the thread is proposing then I think logic is more appropriate.
Obviously chicken is better than beef.
Chess is ultimately a game of logic. Throw two players into a position that they have no knowledge of (like a Fischer Random) and you will see why it is a game of logic first and a game of knowledge second.
There is a base-level of knowledge you need to have in order to play the game (how the pieces move and ...[text shortened]... memorization of positions and move sequences since these sequences do follow a form of logic.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
Originally posted by BahariAhem... on the first point: proof, please. It is widely conjectured that chess is a draw, and I would not argue against it being the most likely situation by a long shot, but the theoretical situation, right now, is that we simply do not yet know whether either side has a forced win.
Ideally yes you are right. Theoretically the game of chess will end up with a draw or white to win if neither party makes mistake.
Not all mistakes are blundered. Most of them are forced mistakes. Most of GMs games are forced mistakes. What does it mean by forced mistake? The doer does not know it is a mistake until he gets punished.
As for the latter point, come on! If it's forced, it's not a mistake. If it's forced, it's a forced win for the opponent, in other words, a good reply by that opponent to an earlier, unforced mistake by the erroneous player. If he hadn't made that mistake, the opponent would not have been able to "force" him into making another "mistake". Unless, of course, you can force your opponent into making mistakes from the very start - but that would mean that chess is not a draw after all...
So, when you get down to it, you contradict yourself. Either chess is a draw - which we don't know yet, but most people assume to be true - or a chess player can force his opponent to make mistakes - which we don't know either, but most people assume to be false. Possibly, depending on whether you count "playing with black" as a mistake, neither. But certainly not both.
Richard
Originally posted by HabeascorpIt depends on the definition of "mistake". 🙂 I think greenpawn was assuming that a mistake is a move that changes the theoretical outcome from win to loss/draw, or from draw to loss. A move that leads to checkmate in 5, when a mate in 3 was possible, could be regarded as "suboptimal" but maybe not a "mistake" as such.
It is not the person who makes the last mistake who loses. E.g. in a k v k,B,N ending the winning player may make a few mistakes but still win with the other player playing perfectly.
Whilst I see your point as to greenpawns intention, losing a queen when in an overwelming position and then still having a superior position must surely be a mistake even if it does not change the outcome of the game?
I think Greenpawn will need to better define his parameters?
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54019
sometimes the opponent demonstrates a better understanding of the position.
in a bishop verses knight position there are some players who show great wizardry in their knight maneuvers.
and in positions where one does a rook exchange sac for a positional advantage position, it just shows superior understanding and assessment.
there is something to be said for knowledge (gained from experience).
Originally posted by Habeascorpmaterial is irrelevant per se. if giving up a queen for a pawn sorts out complications, while preserving a won simpler ending, you ALWAYS sac that queen. it's just good technique.
Whilst I see your point as to greenpawns intention, losing a queen when in an overwelming position and then still having a superior position must surely be a mistake even if it does not change the outcome of the game?
I think Greenpawn will need to better define his parameters?
the first priority in a won position is to remove counter play, NOT getting more material or mating in a flashy complicated way.
complications lose & draw won games more than anything else. never give the tiniest chance for a comeback. ever.
I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.
Chess is a game of applied skill. You acquire knowledge (openings, endings, steinitz principles etc, tactical ideas, past experience) and attempt to apply it to what you see. Logic, calculation, and intuition are tools for discerning how to play when you face an unknown position. Because chess is such a deep game, these tools tend to be paramount to success or failure after a basic chess education.