-2

Have chess science advanced enough to determine if there is a a chess side that always win if both sides are given unlimited time to think for the next move?

Note the question Is not dumb as might seem. We have been speaking of consequences of that all the evening and we wanted to share this idea to the community. Even algorithms that do the next computation knowing the best possible game but given limited moves to try to force the opponent out of the known best possible game.

| improve this question | | | | |
0

Have chess science advanced enough to determine if there is a a chess side that always win if both sides are given unlimited time to think for the next move?

Chess engines are imperfect (for now at least), we've seen it a lot of times with terrible blunders, such as Leela blundering its queen against Andrew Tang, Stockfish getting crushed by AlphaZero making it look like a joke and so on. So no, there isn't a technology that allows us to know if there is a winning side. What we know though is that white does have the advantage because of the first move, but that's only temporary.

Also time doesn't really matter, what matters are the moves played, if black played the absolute best moves, we currently know that it would end in a draw. But again, we can't know if that would be the case with a perfect game.

| improve this answer | | | | |
0

A) Absolute best moves are synonim of perfect game. B) Absolute Black best moves are nulling the temporary White advantage. C) A clear advantage is mostly not sufficient to win a game because chess rules. A+B+C = perfect game is always draw. At now it is only a conjecture, but the demonstration is not so far.

| improve this answer | | | | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.