which would take more moves to win

[bob]

Maybe you do not know but I know like I know that if I leave a coin in the ear then it is going to fall to the floor and not stay in the air.

That depends on the shape of the ear. (I know, you made a typo )

I fully agree that perfect DTM-play from both sides in a knight odds game will most likely take fewer moves to reach mate than a typical knight odds game between humans and/or engines.

Bob seems to think that the losing side is somehow likely to find amazing defensive resources that enable it to postpone the inevitable by hundreds of moves. But there is no rational basis for such expectation. The winning side starts with a huge advantage that it can and will use to increase its advantage at every move. The winning side will have so many more options at its disposal than the losing side that it is sure to find a mating sequence that is much shorter than one would see in a game between fallible opponents.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "find amazing defensive resources." I simply said "meat makes mistakes". Against perfect play, ANY mistake becomes critical.

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

Or in other words, the distance to mate from a knight odds starting position. No way that distance is going to be in the hundreds of moves.

Based on exactly what? Without a "perfect player" what is the basis? Speculation does not count. Perhaps one can probe the 7 piece endings for positions like KQRNKQR to get a maximin type score. Or KRNP vs KRP.

You are obviously never going to want to understand this, but everybody else will agree that with a knight advantage in the opening, the perfect-playing winning side will easily be a rook up or more when the endgame gets in sight (if the game ever gets to the endgame).

This has been explained about five times already in this thread...

No, it has been guesswork supported by speculation and hand-waving. Absolutely no proof of any kind has been offered. And NOBODY is considering the fact that GMs are not perfect players, not even close. Can't hand-wave that away either.

In short, EVERYTHING discussed here is idle speculation. The difference Is that _I_ point out that it is speculation and guesswork when I say that there is no proof that a GM can win with a knight odds against perfect play. Nor that it is won with perfect play although that is more likely than the GM winning. You want to wave your hands and say "but it has been shown about five times already." Roll your eyes all you want. It makes you look just like what you are acting like in this discussion. Someone that doesn't have a clue.

In summary:

(1) NOBODY knows what will happen with perfect play by both sides if one side starts off a knight ahead. Don't even know if the knight is enough to win, although it probably should be. But "should be" is a far cry from "absolutely".

(2) EVERYBODY knows humans do not play perfect chess. Nor do they come very close. Just much better than the rest of the non-GM human players.

Everything else is pure speculation with absolutely no data of any kind to support it. And no, hand-waving is NOT "data".

[syzygy]

Maybe you do not know but I know like I know that if I leave a coin in the ear then it is going to fall to the floor and not stay in the air.

That depends on the shape of the ear. (I know, you made a typo )

I fully agree that perfect DTM-play from both sides in a knight odds game will most likely take fewer moves to reach mate than a typical knight odds game between humans and/or engines.

Bob seems to think that the losing side is somehow likely to find amazing defensive resources that enable it to postpone the inevitable by hundreds of moves. But there is no rational basis for such expectation. The winning side starts with a huge advantage that it can and will use to increase its advantage at every move. The winning side will have so many more options at its disposal than the losing side that it is sure to find a mating sequence that is much shorter than one would see in a game between fallible opponents.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "find amazing defensive resources." I simply said "meat makes mistakes". Against perfect play, ANY mistake becomes critical.

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

Or in other words, the distance to mate from a knight odds starting position. No way that distance is going to be in the hundreds of moves.

Based on exactly what? Without a "perfect player" what is the basis? Speculation does not count. Perhaps one can probe the 7 piece endings for positions like KQRNKQR to get a maximin type score. Or KRNP vs KRP.

You are obviously never going to want to understand this, but everybody else will agree that with a knight advantage in the opening, the perfect-playing winning side will easily be a rook up or more when the endgame gets in sight (if the game ever gets to the endgame).

This has been explained about five times already in this thread...

No, it has been guesswork supported by speculation and hand-waving. Absolutely no proof of any kind has been offered. And NOBODY is considering the fact that GMs are not perfect players, not even close. Can't hand-wave that away either.

GMs???

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

For humanitarian reasons I will leave it at this.

[Uri Blass]

Maybe you do not know but I know like I know that if I leave a coin in the ear then it is going to fall to the floor and not stay in the air.

That depends on the shape of the ear. (I know, you made a typo )

I fully agree that perfect DTM-play from both sides in a knight odds game will most likely take fewer moves to reach mate than a typical knight odds game between humans and/or engines.

Bob seems to think that the losing side is somehow likely to find amazing defensive resources that enable it to postpone the inevitable by hundreds of moves. But there is no rational basis for such expectation. The winning side starts with a huge advantage that it can and will use to increase its advantage at every move. The winning side will have so many more options at its disposal than the losing side that it is sure to find a mating sequence that is much shorter than one would see in a game between fallible opponents.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "find amazing defensive resources." I simply said "meat makes mistakes". Against perfect play, ANY mistake becomes critical.

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

Or in other words, the distance to mate from a knight odds starting position. No way that distance is going to be in the hundreds of moves.

Based on exactly what? Without a "perfect player" what is the basis? Speculation does not count. Perhaps one can probe the 7 piece endings for positions like KQRNKQR to get a maximin type score. Or KRNP vs KRP.

You are obviously never going to want to understand this, but everybody else will agree that with a knight advantage in the opening, the perfect-playing winning side will easily be a rook up or more when the endgame gets in sight (if the game ever gets to the endgame).

This has been explained about five times already in this thread...

No, it has been guesswork supported by speculation and hand-waving. Absolutely no proof of any kind has been offered. And NOBODY is considering the fact that GMs are not perfect players, not even close. Can't hand-wave that away either.

In short, EVERYTHING discussed here is idle speculation. The difference Is that _I_ point out that it is speculation and guesswork when I say that there is no proof that a GM can win with a knight odds against perfect play. Nor that it is won with perfect play although that is more likely than the GM winning. You want to wave your hands and say "but it has been shown about five times already." Roll your eyes all you want. It makes you look just like what you are acting like in this discussion. Someone that doesn't have a clue.

In summary:

(1) NOBODY knows what will happen with perfect play by both sides if one side starts off a knight ahead. Don't even know if the knight is enough to win, although it probably should be. But "should be" is a far cry from "absolutely".

(2) EVERYBODY knows humans do not play perfect chess. Nor do they come very close. Just much better than the rest of the non-GM human players.

Everything else is pure speculation with absolutely no data of any kind to support it. And no, hand-waving is NOT "data".

1)The nature of chess is that if you have a big advantage you can increase the advantage even without mate.

The best way for GM's to beat the perfect player may be to trade pieces and go to the endgame but I expect the perfect player to increase the advantage before going to the endgame because the perfect player is not afraid from complications.

example if you analyze the following position then you can find that the advantage of white gous up because white can win some pawns.

Of course it is a huge material advantage but the same principle is also correct for smaller advantage that is a big advantage and if you have a big advantage you simply can increase it.
[D]1n2k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1

2)The speculatiobn that white wins with a knight advantage and I will even say win in less than 100 moves with perfect play is based on comp-comp games at the high level when white wins in clearly less than 100 moves in every game.

I guess that in 2050 chess is not going to be solved but I guess that computers are usually going to see a forced mate when they have a knight advantage on the board for no compensation.

[S.Taylor]

Maybe you do not know but I know like I know that if I leave a coin in the ear then it is going to fall to the floor and not stay in the air.

That depends on the shape of the ear. (I know, you made a typo )

I fully agree that perfect DTM-play from both sides in a knight odds game will most likely take fewer moves to reach mate than a typical knight odds game between humans and/or engines.

Bob seems to think that the losing side is somehow likely to find amazing defensive resources that enable it to postpone the inevitable by hundreds of moves. But there is no rational basis for such expectation. The winning side starts with a huge advantage that it can and will use to increase its advantage at every move. The winning side will have so many more options at its disposal than the losing side that it is sure to find a mating sequence that is much shorter than one would see in a game between fallible opponents.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "find amazing defensive resources." I simply said "meat makes mistakes". Against perfect play, ANY mistake becomes critical.

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

Or in other words, the distance to mate from a knight odds starting position. No way that distance is going to be in the hundreds of moves.

Based on exactly what? Without a "perfect player" what is the basis? Speculation does not count. Perhaps one can probe the 7 piece endings for positions like KQRNKQR to get a maximin type score. Or KRNP vs KRP.

You are obviously never going to want to understand this, but everybody else will agree that with a knight advantage in the opening, the perfect-playing winning side will easily be a rook up or more when the endgame gets in sight (if the game ever gets to the endgame).

This has been explained about five times already in this thread...

This is very interersting. And the question is:
a).Would it be a win for the knight up (with perfect play), because it can bring more power to bear down on the opponent and can always use to win.
OR
b).Since it will be perfectly defended, it will be a draw, and all the other activity aroumd it during the game, will be defendable, even with the extra knight bearing down on it.

But with humans, we have always understood that a piece up, if before the very end, is only a matter of technique to win.

Would this be different with perfect play?
We already see it today with top computer games (e.g. in TCEC), that it is often often a draw.

OR is this because computers still have a long way to go, and then, when perfect one day, they would always find that way to win.

[S.Taylor]

Perhaps to say that perfect chess is by nature drawn, is a myth?

Perhaps to say that weak moves can always be punished, is a myth?

Maybe chess is nothing more than an enjoyable game and that not too much should be read into it?

I mean, after all... It's only man made, isn't it!

[bob]

Maybe you do not know but I know like I know that if I leave a coin in the ear then it is going to fall to the floor and not stay in the air.

That depends on the shape of the ear. (I know, you made a typo )

I fully agree that perfect DTM-play from both sides in a knight odds game will most likely take fewer moves to reach mate than a typical knight odds game between humans and/or engines.

Bob seems to think that the losing side is somehow likely to find amazing defensive resources that enable it to postpone the inevitable by hundreds of moves. But there is no rational basis for such expectation. The winning side starts with a huge advantage that it can and will use to increase its advantage at every move. The winning side will have so many more options at its disposal than the losing side that it is sure to find a mating sequence that is much shorter than one would see in a game between fallible opponents.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "find amazing defensive resources." I simply said "meat makes mistakes". Against perfect play, ANY mistake becomes critical.

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

Or in other words, the distance to mate from a knight odds starting position. No way that distance is going to be in the hundreds of moves.

Based on exactly what? Without a "perfect player" what is the basis? Speculation does not count. Perhaps one can probe the 7 piece endings for positions like KQRNKQR to get a maximin type score. Or KRNP vs KRP.

You are obviously never going to want to understand this, but everybody else will agree that with a knight advantage in the opening, the perfect-playing winning side will easily be a rook up or more when the endgame gets in sight (if the game ever gets to the endgame).

This has been explained about five times already in this thread...

No, it has been guesswork supported by speculation and hand-waving. Absolutely no proof of any kind has been offered. And NOBODY is considering the fact that GMs are not perfect players, not even close. Can't hand-wave that away either.

GMs???

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

For humanitarian reasons I will leave it at this.

It is the ONLY place you can leave it, since you have zero data to suggest how many moves perfect+N vs perfect will last. Absolutely no data at all.

How completely typical.

The ORIGINAL discussion was GM + knight vs perfect computer, if you care to look. _I_ didn't change the subject. It is STILL 100% speculation to talk about that even though we know the GM is not perfect. Perfect vs perfect is just as pointless to discuss with zero actual data.

You do know what actual data is??? It is NOT "conjecture", "opinion", "someone said", "five people have said" and such.

[bob]

Maybe you do not know but I know like I know that if I leave a coin in the ear then it is going to fall to the floor and not stay in the air.

That depends on the shape of the ear. (I know, you made a typo )

I fully agree that perfect DTM-play from both sides in a knight odds game will most likely take fewer moves to reach mate than a typical knight odds game between humans and/or engines.

Bob seems to think that the losing side is somehow likely to find amazing defensive resources that enable it to postpone the inevitable by hundreds of moves. But there is no rational basis for such expectation. The winning side starts with a huge advantage that it can and will use to increase its advantage at every move. The winning side will have so many more options at its disposal than the losing side that it is sure to find a mating sequence that is much shorter than one would see in a game between fallible opponents.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say "find amazing defensive resources." I simply said "meat makes mistakes". Against perfect play, ANY mistake becomes critical.

You forgot that here we are talking about DTM-perfect (with knight) vs DTM-perfect (without knight).

Or in other words, the distance to mate from a knight odds starting position. No way that distance is going to be in the hundreds of moves.

Based on exactly what? Without a "perfect player" what is the basis? Speculation does not count. Perhaps one can probe the 7 piece endings for positions like KQRNKQR to get a maximin type score. Or KRNP vs KRP.

You are obviously never going to want to understand this, but everybody else will agree that with a knight advantage in the opening, the perfect-playing winning side will easily be a rook up or more when the endgame gets in sight (if the game ever gets to the endgame).

This has been explained about five times already in this thread...

No, it has been guesswork supported by speculation and hand-waving. Absolutely no proof of any kind has been offered. And NOBODY is considering the fact that GMs are not perfect players, not even close. Can't hand-wave that away either.

In short, EVERYTHING discussed here is idle speculation. The difference Is that _I_ point out that it is speculation and guesswork when I say that there is no proof that a GM can win with a knight odds against perfect play. Nor that it is won with perfect play although that is more likely than the GM winning. You want to wave your hands and say "but it has been shown about five times already." Roll your eyes all you want. It makes you look just like what you are acting like in this discussion. Someone that doesn't have a clue.

In summary:

(1) NOBODY knows what will happen with perfect play by both sides if one side starts off a knight ahead. Don't even know if the knight is enough to win, although it probably should be. But "should be" is a far cry from "absolutely".

(2) EVERYBODY knows humans do not play perfect chess. Nor do they come very close. Just much better than the rest of the non-GM human players.

Everything else is pure speculation with absolutely no data of any kind to support it. And no, hand-waving is NOT "data".

1)The nature of chess is that if you have a big advantage you can increase the advantage even without mate.

The best way for GM's to beat the perfect player may be to trade pieces and go to the endgame but I expect the perfect player to increase the advantage before going to the endgame because the perfect player is not afraid from complications.

example if you analyze the following position then you can find that the advantage of white gous up because white can win some pawns.

Of course it is a huge material advantage but the same principle is also correct for smaller advantage that is a big advantage and if you have a big advantage you simply can increase it.
[D]1n2k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1

2)The speculatiobn that white wins with a knight advantage and I will even say win in less than 100 moves with perfect play is based on comp-comp games at the high level when white wins in clearly less than 100 moves in every game.

I guess that in 2050 chess is not going to be solved but I guess that computers are usually going to see a forced mate when they have a knight advantage on the board for no compensation.

This makes no sense. The perfect player will, if the knight handicap is a winning advantage, play perfectly, always choosing to make the move that leads to the shortest forced mate.

And I have seen top programs draw when a rook ahead or more, so forget about that "I have seen them play perfect." How do you KNOW they played perfectly unless you compared their moves against perfect. I can tell you with 100% accuracy if you play perfectly in KQ vs KR or whatever, as we have perfect information. But if we don't have perfect information, this is an impossible statement to make as it is unsupported by any shred of fact.

I don't believe chess will EVER be solved. Just look at the size of the necessary EGTB and figure out a rational way to store it in a device the size of the moon, and then have a way to access any atomic particle quickly and accurately...

The KNPPP..P vs everything is a pointless discussion. Clearly there is an advantage which can not be beaten. But whether it is a knight or not is absolutely unknown.

[duncan]

I don't believe chess will EVER be solved. Just look at the size of the necessary EGTB and figure out a rational way to store it in a device the size of the moon, and then have a way to access any atomic particle quickly and accurately...

if there are more quarks in a proton than atoms in the universe and they can be manipulated and energy supply is not an issue, then maybe chess can be solved as early as this or the next century.

[S.Taylor]

As i am speculating, in my 2 above posts (see there), Perhaps chess is nothing more than a delightful little game after all! I wish it WAS more substantial, but maybe it's not! (please disprove this).

[Dirt]

if there are more quarks in a proton than atoms in the universe and they can be manipulated and energy supply is not an issue, then maybe chess can be solved as early as this or the next century.

There are three quarks in a proton and there is no reason to think we can manipulate them individually.

"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."