It doesn't prove anything of the sort. (And which 'ways' are you distinguishing here anyway?) The existence of a single line that would lead to a position where fallible opponents would almost always blunder away the theoretical draw, and any deviation of that line bringing you to a postion from where fallible opponents would almost always lose (even to equal or somewhat weaker players) is not at all incompatible with all positions in these lines being theoretical draws (i.e. with perfect play).noobpwnftw wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:52 amEither way, this proves my point that by introducing diversity to the opening moves does not seem to harm an engine's performance in any way, even if the engine is a perfect player.
Even in the case of a theoretical loss it is not clear at all that the theoretically best defence (delaying the mate as long as possible) would give the best chances for a 'swindle' against a fallible opponent. In fact ample examples exist where a 'perfect' computer player (having the checkmate within its horizon, which is tantamount to playing a solved game) did himself in by trying to delay a mate through immediate sacrifice of all its material, guaranteeing a loss even if the opponent would not have seen the mate. There is this famous story about this computer from before the Deep Blue era that suddenly sacrificed a Rook when playing a team of human GMs (thus giving them a trivial win), just because it was the only way to avoid a mate in 22 that the opponents would not have spotted in a million years.