38 ( +1 | -1 ) Whenit comes to OTB play- very far I would say. However CC play is a different story, here they can analyse with the best programs on the market and that I believe makes a significant difference, but still this will not be equal to "perfect chess"
21 ( +1 | -1 ) And I wonder what the result would be with perfect play? Win for White, draw (probably, given the margin for a draw) or maybe White is in fact in Zugzwang on move 1 and Chess is a forced win for Black?
25 ( +1 | -1 ) Perfect game?The most succint summation I ever saw of "The Perfect Game" was in a short article on that subject written decades ago by Ortvin Sarapu which ended with the words, "So T.P.G. R.I.P." Do any of us truly want to know if the game exists and if so do we really want to see it?
28 ( +1 | -1 ) A perfect game is playing the best move in every position so it will be a draw. I don't believe that we are too far away from the perfect game. Particularly considering Kasparov and his games. Also GM games only lasting 20 moves or so ending in a draw must be perfect.
358 ( +1 | -1 ) my friend ...here at GK , badhorse , played a game where he was white and was never losing and never less than equal during the entire game. Once he got some initiative and developed an edge, he never lost it nor allowed his opponent to equalize nor wiggle out for the remainder of the game, and brought home the point after entering the endgame favorably and winning it. REMARKABLE ! I did not see where his opponent missed any shots that might have turned it around, nor equalized it, once the edge was established. This while rated in the 1500's. Some players will play for years to achieve such a nice game, and there are surely even higher rated players who have never had a game that clean and forceful as well. I've been on the wrong side of a couple similar efforts. One as WT vs NM/CCM Alex Dunne in corr play where he got an initiative in the opening and held it for many moves. For between 10 and 20 I felt like I needed just One tempo to equalize and he was not giving it to me! Finally a strange occurrence occurred (as occurrences will do...) where I was able to send an IF move in the Rook and Pawn ending, where our position would be exactly "Mirrored" on opposite wings (pieces and pawns all in the same place, for EG WT's pawns on a3,b4,c5 and BL's on h6,g5,f4 !) and strangest of all, His having "The Move" in that position would give Me the advantage! !? Naturally he declined the IF move and did otherwise. Around there I had finally equalized and brought in a draw. But the continuous pressure was quite a sensation to experience. The second time I had a similar situation was in a simul vs IM(Then) Michael Brooks online. Actually two games. But his opening choices, tho non gambits, gave him initiative right from out of the box, so strong I could practically "feel" it coming. Like being at a concert and feeling the bass boom off your chest! One game I typo'd and lost a rook. The other got crushed conventionally without ever being in the game. My otb at the time was about 2070. I still wonder if even the "typo" was really a "typo", or really a subconscious "pressure-crack" (as I call it) when someone has put you in such a critical state long enough to start to exhaust your concentration and next thing you misplace a piece or overlook a check, etc, and it is suddenly over. Was Brooks game perfect? Well surely a GM might have gotten into the game or equalized, but I didn't. And once his pressure peaked, it was well over. I never had a good counter-stroke and might only have done better while still in the opening or early middle game stages perhaps. PERHAPS. SO one big question, when considering if a game is perfect: should we consider only the objectively best moves of both sides and whether they were made? Then, as has been mentioned, probably every "Perfect" game would need to end in a draw. (Or should we just overlook the first move or first three or Ten(?) moves of an opening and decide if it is PERFECT from there? OR should Perfect play only consider the moves of ONE player? That is usually how I like to view it. Especially since my own objective was usually just this, to strive to play a perfect game or as close as possible, especially while playing Postal Chess seriously. Secondly, for maximum accuracy and/or artistry, depending on the mood of the day. Because it seems to me we cannot be responsible for the moves our opp chooses, and can only try to make our own play as fitting as possible. Of course, even considering only one sides moves, there are still a dozen different ways to judge the quality of a game! }8-)
76 ( +1 | -1 ) oh ...I forgot to mention, the opponent of badhorse did not make a huge error like blundering a piece or such, rather stayed in the game till near the end, had he been given any real chance to pull it out. What should we call such a game? Where neither player played Perfectly in the sense that every Best Move was seen and played. Nor played without ANY Inaccuracy(s), but the winner did NOT play any Significant Inaccuracy, nor any Error Meaningful to the outcome of the game ! Surely we should have an appropriate label for such a heroic effort!? Maybe that's it? ... a Heroic Effort game! In baseball terminology, if not a Perfect Game, is his perhaps a No-Hitter then?
39 ( +1 | -1 ) final point ...(sorry it is One of Those Days) In that particular game, the winner did not have anything I'd term an Error. So that is a generic statement there ... but my intention in it, by saying no Significant Inaccuracy (nor error) is meaning that such would not be significant even vs Best Play by the defender. Not meaning that he just didn't capitalize. Thank You for your forbearance. I think it is breaktime! G'day }8-)
67 ( +1 | -1 ) No-one has made this point yet.
In some games it is hard to see how the winner could have improved. Particularly where one side has made huge mistakes and the other takes advantage of those using sacrifices to force wins in under 30 moves. This is where one player could not possible have improved his performance. Not just looking unbeatable (which is what I think you are saying. Discus?)
The second question is about the perfect game. A high proportion of GM games end in draws. Is this because they are playing close to perfect? Another thought is that if you agreed a draw at move 1 that would be the perfect game.
142 ( +1 | -1 ) The perfect game is easy to define. Simply take what computers do to the extreme: make a game tree (from each position, branch out into all possible moves) that extends each branch all the way to the end (each branch must terminate into 1-0, 1/2-1/2, or 0-1). Then, perform the mini-max algorithm all the way up the tree. You can read more about this here (look for the graphical example): -> en.wikipedia.org
The end result, by the way, could be any of the 3. Whether it's intuitive or not, best play from both sides (meaning that no other move from player X could have improved the result for X had his opponent also continued to play perfectly) could be a win for white or black. You can come up with reasons why one or the other or a draw seems most likely, but in the end no amount of reasoning can overcome the actual result.
All you need is one perfect line and then maybe white or black has a forced win. Any small deviation could take that win away. In fact, the perfect game may not even seem to make sense, but if you try any other move, the end result can only be worse for you.
Also, since there are many possible games but only 3 possible results, I'm inclined to believe that there are many perfect games. If you get the same result, it doesn't matter which sequence of perfect moves get you there.
86 ( +1 | -1 ) perfect playpeople aren't perfect, yet can be brilliant. the greatest game may have errors such that close analysis could find more 'perfect play', however given the conditions of play (over the board in front of a fire with some cognac?), the time used, the skill of players, perhaps the greatest games are those won or lost with sustained excellence without blunders on either side. i have not played a drawn game and felt any satisfaction afterward, but some of my favorites have been losses. when the pieces come alive in the game and take on a personality particular to that game, and struggle as we for space and position (even glory and pride), with no room for luck or excuses, then i feel we are on the path to the greatest game. as for perfection, Chess itself is the perfect game.
165 ( +1 | -1 ) Just to add grist.My perfect game was based on anothers foolhardy 3rd move playing Kings Gambit. I am far from a perfect chess player, but i certainly disabled my opponent from recovering from his move. I checkmated him in 12. I hate draws and do not find this objectively or subjectively pleasing. A draw to my mind is not a mutual achievment. It is chess right... hindsight in chess is not a comfort. If I perceive it is to be a draw then I need to alter my game to predict and enact my opportunity to win. And this may mean losing! Yes I have drawn, but I hate it. I agree that environment sets a tone for memorable moments, but losing, quickly causes you to think how much the cognac cost. To compare and contrast, one can consider Backgammon. The dice predict the opportunity. In chess there logically is no predicting, but there is opportunity. So, in chess, opportunity predicts the outcome. So to say, at the first opportunity, the one to maximise the outcome by a win, has played the perfect game. To determine the perfect game between individuals would require a database that would find from all games, a win achieved from the first opportunity, in the least moves. Given a number of games could claim the least moves from the initial opportunity, this could be arbitrated by least or most opponents pieces taken. Sun Tzu could be wrong, right! (etc, etc) P.S. I know my game was a million miles from perfect, because I myself am a dill ; ) If it was voted as such, it would be pure fluke and I was unconcious of the opportunity I took. But innocence works all ways right. Glad I had this rant and I look forward to beating all of you! Any time I beat someone better than me, that was the perfect game.