Winning with the Plow

[jefk]

ok kiddies, here is the best opening move of all time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_dgmiLYG58

It's called the Plow !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMzRnWqwG5A

Played by a former world champ hallelujah.
And in true alfazero style, it attacks Blacks kingside,

So there may be a forced win for White !
OIJ$)@*)&)(&)(U:?_(_)(&_&_&_*?!????#?%?#?%? ?? ?
WELL then Hey, hooray, maybe chess is not(*) a draw
Everybody (and syzygy) happy now ? Good (lol)

PS Peter B (in other thread) i wasn't 'agressive'
1) simply assertive because i don't like nonsense
when being serious (scientifically minded). Also
2) this talkchess hosting as we all know can be annoying; i'm
on a VPN in Germany maybe in the USA its more userfriendly,
dunno Lets see if this posting comes through
(otherwise copied for a next try)
3) it's not an unimportant subject because of ICCF correspondence
chess and a lot of (computer) time is wasted nowadays by playing
long games with a known outcomes i.e. '1/2'

(*) being a bit ironic now ofcourse (a move like 1.h4 gives up center control and ofcourse won't lead to a forced win; neither will e4 and d4 ofcourse but for that you can continue to discuss ad infinitum
in the other thread (although not with me anymore)

[jefk]

As i had announced I left the -by now boring- thread about solving chess;
yet as someone suggested people like me may 'have problems to solve' I
will comment/react to this person here:

Chesskobra
i'm not offended, but i was annoyed, for reasons (eg .the hosting here, and the on average
rather low level of discussion) i already explained in a previous posting in this awesome thread .

Some postings there (in the solving chess thread) confirm/show again that also math/game theory is a sociological
process. It sometimes takes time and a changed mindset ( i dont like the word paradigm change) before a new truth
is understood . It's not about finding one winning line against SF, it's about finding a winning strategy for White; which is
impossible; let's say you find one winning line with 1.h4 after 1.d5 (probably due to some Black mistakes but
anyway); then you simply change 1.d5 to 1.e5 in the opening book and again, it's a draw.
So it's not about beating SF in Game, it's about finding a winning line in eg. the
Chinese database (instead of -probably- losing line like 1.g4). Mission impossible.

So i may have a problem to solve, namely, writing a clear and unambigous article
about my findings over last decades and showing chess is a darw.

Chesskobra it's Speelman, not Spielman(n) the latter was someone else; and i don't
care what eg. an Elkies or Terence Tao or the Pope would (currently) say about it.
An other example besides those i already mentioned is Arno Nickel, organizer of the
-now defunct- site infinitychess for advance chess; they found out chess is a draw
already years, ago, therefore he addressed the draw problem in 2015
https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspon ... aw-problem
https://en.chessbase.com/post/how-many- ... for-a-draw

For the rest it appears only onetrickpony there (in that horrible other thread) seems to get it, and i agree with
his suggestion of 'weakly solved in practice'

Dann Corbit suggested this may be true but we only lack a formal proof. Indeed for ultraweakly solving you need
a math proof, but for me Mcts plus Zermelo is indicating an ultraweak proof in practice. The Chinese database
indicates a weak solution in practice. And my computer when running Shashchess with 6 thrds Mcts
indicate a weak solution in practice. A few more years and we simply omit the words 'in practice.
Some math purists may then still continue to debate about nomenclature, well i don't care;
the current definitions are on wikipedia, but i couldn't find much about the origins of such definitions
(starting from eg. Neumann, Nash etc. it looks like it's some terms invented by
one specific inner circle of game theorists, eg. originating from Jvd Herik etc. If someone
has clear references besides wikipedia, let us know. Oh and yes you can corroborate
that Hex has been 'ultraweakly' solved by using an Mcts searcher; it has been done you know.
https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~hayward ... ts-hex.pdf
An ultraweak (horrible word) solution is not so weak btw

By now it's not 99.x pct certain that chess with current rules is a draw, it's 100.0000.. pct certain.
Because i say so (quote GM Ben Finegold with his favorite expression when teaching 1.h4 kiddies on yt).
Yes kiddies, play 1.e4 or 1.d4, or 1.Nf3 (not h4); don't believe
me syzygy, well then run lco nibble for some time and you'll see.

[jefk]

So here's the definite proof, 1.h4!! is the
best opening of all times, just played it in a 10 min
game on lichess (obviously without comp assistance)

[Event "Rated Rapid game"]
[Site "https://lichess.org"]
[Date "2023.11.21"]
[Result "1-0"]
[UTCDate "2023.11.21"]
[UTCTime "23:00:15"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Opening "Kádas Opening"]

1. h4!! d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bb5+ c6 4. Be2 h6 5. d4 Bf5 6. Nd2 e6 7. Ngf3 Nbd7
8. b3 Bd6 9. Bb2 Qe7 10. c4 Bb4 11. a3 Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2 Ne4 13. Qb4 Qxb4+
14. axb4 O-O 15. Ra5 Bg4 16. Ne5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Bxe2 18. Kxe2 a6 19. Rh3 f5
20. f3 Nf6 21. exf6 gxf6 22. cxd5 cxd5 23. Rg3+ Kf7 24. h5 Rg8 25. Rxg8
Rxg8 26. Kf2 Rc8 27. Kg3 Rc2 28. Bd4 e5 29. Bc5 Rd2 30. b5 d4 31. exd4
exd4 32. bxa6 bxa6 33. Rxa6 d3 34. Ra7+ Ke6 35. Re7+ Kd5 36. Bb4 Rd1 37.
Bc3 Kd6 38. Bxf6 d2 39. Re2 Kc5 40. Bc3 Rb1 41. b4+ Kc4 42. Bxd2 1-0

Accuracy 94 pct, so not bad huh, for a 10 min game.

So has chess now been solved ? Well almost, maybe,
with 1.h4 as the winning move ! (Sf ofcourse is not
yet seeing this, but new engines as Torch maybe will)

[jefk]

in two games by Carlsen (eg against Jobava) he played 2.d4 after 1.h4 d5.

But despite the lousy statistics (i know all the games by head(*) like Carlsen Lol) i choose for the awesome move 2.e3!!

And then after 2.Nf6 as e.g. in the awesome game Globan(2035)-Kozul(2604(!)), 2017 i didn't play 3.h5 ???
like Globan in the game, which he lost, but found the awesome complete Novelty 3.Bb5+!!!
Novelty of the century ! (and completely turning upside down all
chess theory since Steinitz !! Like the Chinese database confirms,
it's not the center anymore which matters (which we knew already
from Reti and the 'hypermodern' masters with fianchetto's)
but the Flank !!! (alfazero also like h4, you know);
superhypermodern chess theory ! 1.h4, 1-0, Chess is Solved

(*) well in some way, subconsciously maybe

[abgursu]

So you are the new troll, interesting one goes and another one comes.

[jefk]

In the realm of chess, where minds convene,
A lively forum, where strategies are keen,
Me sometimes a jester, sought to bring delight,
With words of wit, my aim to ignite.
Amidst the banter, a claim I made,
That 1.h4, the Plow, would never fade.

A whimsical notion, irony so sly,
To see who'd chuckle or who'd give reply.
But alas, my humor was lost, it seems,
A tempest brewed within chessboard dreams.
"troll!" you cried, your voice was raised,
In a misunderstanding's dark haze.

Yet in another thread, I played my part,
Discussing chess with a serious heart.
Delving into puzzles, grand and profound,
With keen analysis, my stance was found.
My love for chess, sincere and true,
No jesting there, as passion grew.

In this chess forum, where minds collide,
Let laughter, irony, and humor coincide.
For within this game of wit and guile,
Where pawns and kings engage in trial,
"The Plow, the greatest opening move!"
I exclaimed, chuckling, my tongue in groove.

But one dear reader grew perplexed,
Taking my words as solemn context.
Yet in another thread, I made it clear,
With earnest analysis, a chess lover's sincere.
Exploring tactics, strategies profound,
My unwound passion for chess resound.

So let it be known, you chess enthusiasts dear,
In the realm of forums, I hold steadfast and clear.
Though jests may dance upon my written page,
My love for chess burns bright, regardless of age.
In forums of chess, where minds sometimes collide,
Let room for laughter, irony, and humor coincide.
For in both jest and seriousness, we find delight,
In this grand game, where brilliance takes flight.

And as we speak of transpositions and transgressions,
Let's clarify the moves with Shakespearian expressions.
While Magnus Carlsen did not play e3, it's true,
In a similar line, his moves found their due.
For h4-d5-e3-Nf6 can transpose with a twist,
To h4-d5-d4-Nf6-e3, a strategic gist.

In spirit of chess master James Mason (1.e3) divine,
Reincarnated, his moves intertwine with mine.
With e3, and Shakespeare's influence profound,
A fusion of wit, literature, and chess renowned.
In this forum of chess, where imagination takes reign,
Let us revel in the joy of this intellectual game,
Where humor and serious play may intertwine,
And brilliance of both, for ages still may shine.