4 ms·

Of course it is possible to exploit the psychology of the opponent. Bluffing does exist in chess, and it relies on your opponent's inability to realize that you

Of course it is possible to exploit the psychology of the opponent. Bluffing does exist in chess, and it relies on your opponent's inability to realize that you've made a sub-optimal move. For example, at the highest levels, grandmasters often attempt to increase the amount of complications in a position, which is a way of making the claim that "I can calculate more moves, more quickly, than you"; if that isn't true, then it is a bluff, which doesn't mean it won't work. But in a solved position, the best move is irrefutable. Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw (e.g. tic-tac-toe, checkers). In chess, the best move in a solved position always also anticipates every possible response by the opponent. This is the entire point of opening theory, and is why chess players speak of "punishing" their opponents; if I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage.

chongli 5y ago
I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage. That assumes the less-than-ideal move stays within your preparation. If, on the other hand, you dismissed that move during preparation because of its sub optimal evaluation then I have succeeded in getting you out of prep and into a middle game with a small disadvantage but potentially a lot of play. If I can then steer the game down a very sharp line then your small advantage means a lot less due to the dynamics of the position.
- in3d 5y ago
  Your response doesn’t apply to truly solved positions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Someone 5y ago
    It does. There are plenty of truly solved positions that very, very few humans, if any, can play optimally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Applications and https://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM_eng https://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM_eng have some examples. Certainly, no human player knows how to play all of these.
    - in3d 5y ago
      You talked about the opening but now you’re linking to endgame tablebases? Not at all comparable.
tsimionescu 5y ago
When you talk of fully solved positions, that doesn't really include openings, does it? There are no opening moves that can guarantee a victory, so there are no solved openings. Truly solved moves are all in the late game, where it becomes possible to evaluate all possible moves and know for sure what is the best course of action. I also think that even in truly solved positions, there are cases where the known best case is a draw or even defeat, but that assumes perfect play from your opponent. If you suspect your opponent can be lured into making mistakes, sub-optimal moves on your part could lead to a victory where in perfect play the outcome would be defeat or a draw. To take an extreme case, the various 'check mate in 3 moves' openings do work against some players, though they are very bad moves against remotely decent opponents.
johannes1234321 5y ago
> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw That assumes that both players are equal. In many games there is a benefit for one of the players. In such a game the effect of perfect play by one player is to win Inna's fee turns as possible, while for the other player the perfect play only prolongs the game. For instance in "connect four" the starting player should begin in center to enforce win.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  > Inna's fee (from "in as few" I assume) Whoa! That is some auto-correct you have there.
bongoman37 5y ago
> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw (e.g. tic-tac-toe, checkers). Not necessarily. Perfect play in Connect-4, e.g., always leads to the first player winning.[1] Perfect play from a particular point onward in Chess in some positions, like zugzwang, would always lead to the first player to move losing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four
Someone 5y ago
> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw That depends on the game. The classical example of a game that isn’t is Hex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)), where the player playing first will win under perfect play (yes, it isn’t solved in general, but the board may be small enough to have been solved.) Connect Four on the standard-sized board also is a win for the player going first (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four#Mathematical_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four#Mathematical_solu...). There, we even know how to do that. For chess, the question whether it is a draw is an open problem (I think way fewer people would be surprised if it were proven to be a draw than when it would be proven to be winning for either player, but there’s no proof for that)
bluecalm 5y ago
This is a very simplistic view. You can rate moves not only by result with objective play but also by how hard it is to play against using objective measure (for example move A is better than move B is to draw against A you need a top engine with 20 seconds per move while against move B only 2 seconds are needed). Saying all moves are the same is like saying all mazes are equally hard.

chongli 5y ago

I play an ideal move in a solved position, and you play a less-than-ideal move in response, I have already gained an advantage. That assumes the less-than-ideal move stays within your preparation. If, on the other hand, you dismissed that move during preparation because of its sub optimal evaluation then I have succeeded in getting you out of prep and into a middle game with a small disadvantage but potentially a lot of play. If I can then steer the game down a very sharp line then your small advantage means a lot less due to the dynamics of the position.

in3d 5y ago
Your response doesn’t apply to truly solved positions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Someone 5y ago
  It does. There are plenty of truly solved positions that very, very few humans, if any, can play optimally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Applications and https://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM_eng https://tb7.chessok.com/articles/Top8DTM_eng have some examples. Certainly, no human player knows how to play all of these.
  - in3d 5y ago
    You talked about the opening but now you’re linking to endgame tablebases? Not at all comparable.

tsimionescu 5y ago

When you talk of fully solved positions, that doesn't really include openings, does it? There are no opening moves that can guarantee a victory, so there are no solved openings. Truly solved moves are all in the late game, where it becomes possible to evaluate all possible moves and know for sure what is the best course of action. I also think that even in truly solved positions, there are cases where the known best case is a draw or even defeat, but that assumes perfect play from your opponent. If you suspect your opponent can be lured into making mistakes, sub-optimal moves on your part could lead to a victory where in perfect play the outcome would be defeat or a draw. To take an extreme case, the various 'check mate in 3 moves' openings do work against some players, though they are very bad moves against remotely decent opponents.

johannes1234321 5y ago

> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw That assumes that both players are equal. In many games there is a benefit for one of the players. In such a game the effect of perfect play by one player is to win Inna's fee turns as possible, while for the other player the perfect play only prolongs the game. For instance in "connect four" the starting player should begin in center to enforce win.

AlbertCory 5y ago
> Inna's fee (from "in as few" I assume) Whoa! That is some auto-correct you have there.

bongoman37 5y ago

> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw (e.g. tic-tac-toe, checkers). Not necessarily. Perfect play in Connect-4, e.g., always leads to the first player winning.[1] Perfect play from a particular point onward in Chess in some positions, like zugzwang, would always lead to the first player to move losing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four

Someone 5y ago

> Perfect play by both opponents in a solved game always leads to a draw That depends on the game. The classical example of a game that isn’t is Hex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hex_(board_game)), where the player playing first will win under perfect play (yes, it isn’t solved in general, but the board may be small enough to have been solved.) Connect Four on the standard-sized board also is a win for the player going first (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four#Mathematical_solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four#Mathematical_solu...). There, we even know how to do that. For chess, the question whether it is a draw is an open problem (I think way fewer people would be surprised if it were proven to be a draw than when it would be proven to be winning for either player, but there’s no proof for that)

bluecalm 5y ago

This is a very simplistic view. You can rate moves not only by result with objective play but also by how hard it is to play against using objective measure (for example move A is better than move B is to draw against A you need a top engine with 20 seconds per move while against move B only 2 seconds are needed). Saying all moves are the same is like saying all mazes are equally hard.