There is an Ideal Opening Move in Chess

Resolution:"A guaranteed win is enabled if the player cannot fail to win if he makes the right moves. The fact that players do in fact make the wrong moves is irrelevant. "Whether or not a player makes a wrong move determines whether or not a move is "ideal". If a player makes all the right moves then any move could be considered an ideal move since it "enables" the player to win. An ideal move though guarantees a player will win or tie a game of chess regardless of any future errors. Chess is a game controlled by humans, so human error will always be a factor which eliminates the possibility of there being an ideal opening move. "As I said in Round 3, this means that no game can have a perfect strategy"There is a difference between having a perfect strategy, having a strategy that increases your odds of winning, and a strategy that guarantees victory or a tie no matter what. .. .. . It is perfectly possible that a move exists in Chess that boosts your odds of winning, but that is a far cry from being able to claim that there is an opening move that guarantees a win. Chance in Chess:" If he doesn't notice and makes the wrong move as a result, that is a result of his error, not uncertainty within the game. .. "I agree. But that error still leads to chance because you never know when your opponent is going to screw up. Stratego creates chance through deception, Chess creates chance through failing to take into account all of the variables. "Con does agree that players will always move successfully"I certainly do not! " It is surely plausible that chess grandmasters (or even skilled amateurs) never fail to perceive events on the board. "Its plausible but it isnt reality. There are computers that can beat chess grandmasters which means that even chess grandmasters fail to account for variables. The ironic part is that occasionally the same chess grandmasters can beat the computers who beat them, meaning that even the computers fail to properly take into account all of the variables in a game of chess. . http://www.nytimes.com...http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com...http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.engadget.com...http://www-03.ibm.com... "If it is easier, pretend that there is a race of supermen who are smarter than the smartest computer and never make mistakes. If they play chess, it will still be the same game, but none of these factors will apply"If such a day comes, there is still the fact that there are many different ways to win at chess, and each one of those paths to victory consist of moves that can be countered in many different ways as the game progressed. " solubility is itself an abstract mathematical concept and should not change when a computer is invented. "But what happens when solubility is defined as increasing the odds to win rather than guarantee it? There are moves in every game ever invented that increases or decreases your odds of winning a game, and the math behind solubility of a game doesnt come as a clear cut path to victory. It comes in the form of making moves that over time stack the odds in your favor as time progresses. Solubility doesnt revolve around revealing an unbeatable series of moves to win, its about using a series of moves that you can make which boost your chances of winning over time. Game States + Chess Trees" You examine the tree for White and see if there is a path that leads to a win or tie no matter what Black does. "But any move that white makes can be countered by black, in the particular branch though black failed to take into account all the variables and made mistakes that other players could counter successfully. There are thousands and thousands of paths to victory for white, but none of those are the ideal strategy because all of them can be countered in numerous ways at numerous stages. Finite-ness of Chess" Con has nothing more than an unproven intuition that more complex rules meaningfully alter the inherent nature of the game. "The number of game states in chess does lead to other game states, much like tic-tac-toe. However the nature of how tic-tac-toe is played compared to chess does change how the transition from one change of game state to another is affected. What makes chess fundamentally different from tic-tac-toe isnt that chess is more complex or has more pieces, its because Chess is won differently than tic-tac-toe. In tic-tac-toe, three in a row and that is how you win. In chess though you win by cornering or capturing the opponents King piece. What does this mean though in terms of transition of game states between both games? The reason that there is a way to win at tic-tac-toe is because in tic-tac-toe game states rely a great deal on prior game states. Chess on the other hand does not rely extensively on prior game states to determine who wins or loses. In chess the game states in the past do not significantly determine the outcome of the game because game states in chess are made to allow access to other game states to increase the odds of winning. Tic-tac-toe goes from state to state to try to win, chess on the other hand goes from state to state just to stack your odds in the long term. That is why there isnt an ideal opening move in Chess, because the opening move does so little to affect the outcome of the game. " I am sure that the huge majority of paths can be countered. The question is, can all of them? "Yes, all of them can be countered. At any point in any game a key piece could be eliminated or a different piece could be moved instead of another to protect against a move. There is no invincible way to win a game of Chess. " If there is no path, then the opponent has a series of ideal moves to victory: counter every time! "Chess isnt a game of defense though, its a game of both offense and defense by both sides. Black can counter against any move or any piece, whether they choose to or not determines the outcome of the game. White wins if black makes more errors in assessing the variables, black wins if white makes more errors. Just because Black can counter any move by White does not mean that Black has a series of moves to victory. White and Black both have to play offense and defense. "I defy Con to tell us that there is no ideal move for Black in this position"There is an ideal move for black in that position, however there are many aspects of this scenario that shows how this isnt an ideal opening move. Number 1) White set himself up for this more than black did anythingNumber 2) Whites last move was the fatal error, literally any other move would nullify the "ideal" move by BlackNumber 3) There are over 100 other ways that White could have made his first two moves, of those 100+ moves this is the ONLY game state which allows for this easy checkmate by Black. And most importantly Number 4) Blacks initial opening move does not win the game, it is the move made after it. Conclusion:Chess is played by making moves that increase your odds of winning over time, an ideal opening move does not exist in chess because all moves in chess can be countered and negated. Pro himself said that an ideal move has resulted in a loss thousands of times in the past, an ideal move guarantees victory regardless of human error or moves made by the opponent. In chess though both of these exist and both of these are evidence for why there isnt an ideal opening move in chess.