Two Six-Packs of Beer on a Game Theory Wager

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
However, not all games have this property, and it has not been proven that White can at least draw in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence, from every level of play and from every computer chess program ever built, that it is White that has the advantage, not Black - and thus the question is almost certainly: is the opening position a win for White (probably not) or a draw?

The difference is the complete information that white has; in poker, acting last allows you to have more information. In chess, acting first allows you to improve your position, forcing the second player to play catchup until white makes an inaccurate move.

It is theoretically possible that white is lost, but it seems incredibly unlikely. World class players nearly never lose with the white pieces, and it is pretty simple for the top players in the world to force a drawish position if they have white.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

However, there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence... that it is White that has the advantage, not Black

[/ QUOTE ]
That isn't news.

I try to point out things that are not obvious, particularly when they contradict things that people have just said. In particular, game theory does not say that White can at least draw. That is what is relevant to this thread, and it contradicts a statement made by the original poster.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not known. It is not a simple consequence of basic principles of game theory. It is conceivable that the opening position could be an instance of zugzwang.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fat [censored] chance.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]

In particular, game theory does not say that White can at least draw. That is what is relevant to this thread, and it contradicts a statement made by the original poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not contradict my statement. I stated that game theory predicts that black will either win or tie given perfect knowledge and perfect play, even if white plays perfectly as well.

[Jeff W]

I am missing something in my original stipulations. However, it seems that you and several other posters misread my original wager. I claimed that the 2nd player has the advantage.

Anyway, let us simply apply my wager to chess instead of a broader continuum of games. Will black always win or tie in chess given perfect play(I am aware of anecdotal evidence to the contrary)?

[J_V]

No, white is at a distinct advantage. Anyone trying to argue otherwise is insane.

[Jeff W]

Nevermind guys. Thanks for the help.

[TStoneMBD]

if youve ever played uno or crazy eight, you should know that the player who goes first has a distinct advantage.

if you removed games with a random element then your arguement would be a bit more valid, however, it would still be wrong.

for instance, lets play darts;

rule: whoever hits the bullseye on a dartboard first wins.

player 1 is obviously at an advantage.

[FNG]

In chess, white moves first so he has a 1 tempo advantage. With perfect play by both sides he cannot lose, except in the special case that the starting position is zugzwang for both sides, which I assume can be constructed.

I don't think there's a generalization for this, it must be game specific, since you can construct a game such that a given side will win. Chess is just one constructed so that who moves first wins.

[ACW]

Really trivial example of first player always winning :

Put $1 each on the table. Players take it in turns to pick up as much money as they like until there's none left.

99.99999% of player 1's win the whole $2.