lichess.org
Donate

Do You Understand Antichess?

tpr

"why 1. e3 is so popular"

  • Because 1 e3 wins by force in 79 moves at most.
    It is pointless for white to play any other move.
    What to play with black is a different question.
    Any reply loses for black, but some may complicate white's task more.
    1 e3 c5 loses in 79 moves, and the tree comprises 520,809 positions.
    1 e3 b6 loses in 69 moves, and the tree comprises 1,024,711 positions.
"why 1. e3 is so popular" * Because 1 e3 wins by force in 79 moves at most. It is pointless for white to play any other move. What to play with black is a different question. Any reply loses for black, but some may complicate white's task more. 1 e3 c5 loses in 79 moves, and the tree comprises 520,809 positions. 1 e3 b6 loses in 69 moves, and the tree comprises 1,024,711 positions.
cFlour

Very informative Blog, and I think you did a good take on why just because something is solved doesn't mean it stops being playable.

Very informative Blog, and I think you did a good take on why just because something is solved doesn't mean it stops being playable.
Gautham_A

@tpr said ^

"why 1. e3 is so popular"

  • Because 1 e3 wins by force in 79 moves at most.

Lichess database states that white ends up scoring only in 51% of games (2200+ games, so that the results are more accurate.) #79 isn’t the easiest thing to spot is it? Half of #15 positions in anti are barely different from a 0.0 so it doesn’t make sense to call e3 a “forced win in 79 moves”

It is pointless for white to play any other move.

Now this is something that I do not understand. Due to e3’s popularity, many people have studied it to great depths, in my honest opinion, it is probably high time everyone has another opening other than e3...

Good blog kel, would have been better if there was a stormy mention :)

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/J54z7RBD) > "why 1. e3 is so popular" > * Because 1 e3 wins by force in 79 moves at most. Lichess database states that white ends up scoring only in 51% of games (2200+ games, so that the results are more accurate.) #79 isn’t the easiest thing to spot is it? Half of #15 positions in anti are barely different from a 0.0 so it doesn’t make sense to call e3 a “forced win in 79 moves” > It is pointless for white to play any other move. Now this is something that I do not understand. Due to e3’s popularity, many people have studied it to great depths, in my honest opinion, it is probably high time everyone has another opening other than e3... Good blog kel, would have been better if there was a stormy mention :)
Johnny312

@tpr said ^

It is pointless for white to play any other move.

I would love to see you start playing antichess (since you played 0 games) and scoring 100% with white because it's forced. Without being assisted by the Watkins tree, of course.

As always, Kel's writing is enjoyable to read, good stuff!

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/J54z7RBD) > It is pointless for white to play any other move. I would love to see you start playing antichess (since you played 0 games) and scoring 100% with white because it's forced. Without being assisted by the Watkins tree, of course. As always, Kel's writing is enjoyable to read, good stuff!
tpr

"it doesn’t make sense to call e3 a forced win in 79 moves”

  • It makes sense, as it is true.

"Due to e3’s popularity, many people have studied it to great depths"

  • Whatever black studies, even to depth 79 moves, black loses if white plays it right.

"it is probably high time everyone has another opening other than e3"

  • So as to avoid winning? It makes no sense for white to play anything else but 1 e3. What gives best chances for black remains to discuss.
"it doesn’t make sense to call e3 a forced win in 79 moves” * It makes sense, as it is true. "Due to e3’s popularity, many people have studied it to great depths" * Whatever black studies, even to depth 79 moves, black loses if white plays it right. "it is probably high time everyone has another opening other than e3" * So as to avoid winning? It makes no sense for white to play anything else but 1 e3. What gives best chances for black remains to discuss.
NoPebblesLeftedited

Bishop is hard indeed, at some point I thought for fast time control just have some early objectives: lose the bishops quickly and lose 1 rook to avoid double rooks at first rank, a bit boring perhaps but well could be a strategy for a win. Bishops are so dangerous in many parts of middle game and takes so much time to think of correct moves keeping bishops safe.

Otoh I found some traps in opening lines in which the bishop is out in the open and the opponent thinks... oh I won't calculate that since that is probably a cleanup... In that sense it is also a piece that can make you creative.

Also of course when the bishop controls space without pawns being able to reach it with with a double jump or as a side pawn is also a good place to be in... but that is often hard to accomplish.

Bishop is hard indeed, at some point I thought for fast time control just have some early objectives: lose the bishops quickly and lose 1 rook to avoid double rooks at first rank, a bit boring perhaps but well could be a strategy for a win. Bishops are so dangerous in many parts of middle game and takes so much time to think of correct moves keeping bishops safe. Otoh I found some traps in opening lines in which the bishop is out in the open and the opponent thinks... oh I won't calculate that since that is probably a cleanup... In that sense it is also a piece that can make you creative. Also of course when the bishop controls space without pawns being able to reach it with with a double jump or as a side pawn is also a good place to be in... but that is often hard to accomplish.
Kellogzz

@tpr

Thank you for your response. I was hoping I would see a comment from you pop up.

As the blog article suggests, understanding is what we derive and conclude from meaning. Later, I comment on the 1,000,000+ positions that can make a move the ‘best’ move. But again, as this article tries to point out, statistics and numbers cannot account for the circumstances that cause a particular position to appear on the board.

Taking you as an example: I can play 1.f4 against you and probably win. And I will probably play it too, because you appear to focus primarily on what 1.e3 offers you, rather than on what your opponent might be trying to achieve.

What I described above is exactly what my blog suggests. I value the person more than the game itself when trying to secure a victory.

This is also where I think our interpretations differ. You seem to encounter a claim, question its premise, and then fill in the missing parts with your own frame of reference. You subsequently reason very consistently from those premises, but the conclusion you reach can therefore address a question that was never actually being asked.

“Because 1.e3 wins in 79 moves.”

That is a perfectly relevant fact, but it does not establish the correlation or causal explanation for the phenomenon being discussed. It tells us something about the objective solution of the position, but not necessarily why humans play the game the way they do, why certain openings become popular, or how relevant that solution is in practical play.

And in a 1+0 antichess game, that theoretical fact can have very little practical relevance, as either player may run out of time long before the theoretical solution becomes meaningful.

Lastly, I am genuinely curious: do you analyse the game, or do you primarily check the moves against the solution?

What factors outside of the game itself do you value when preparing for a game of chess, presuming you play OTB chess? Do you consider your opponent's tendencies, habits, preferred positions, time management, psychological state, or previous games?

Because those things are also part of the game, even though they do not appear in the game tree.

@tpr Thank you for your response. I was hoping I would see a comment from you pop up. As the blog article suggests, understanding is what we derive and conclude from meaning. Later, I comment on the 1,000,000+ positions that can make a move the ‘best’ move. But again, as this article tries to point out, statistics and numbers cannot account for the circumstances that cause a particular position to appear on the board. Taking you as an example: I can play 1.f4 against you and probably win. And I will probably play it too, because you appear to focus primarily on what 1.e3 offers you, rather than on what your opponent might be trying to achieve. What I described above is exactly what my blog suggests. I value the person more than the game itself when trying to secure a victory. This is also where I think our interpretations differ. You seem to encounter a claim, question its premise, and then fill in the missing parts with your own frame of reference. You subsequently reason very consistently from those premises, but the conclusion you reach can therefore address a question that was never actually being asked. “Because 1.e3 wins in 79 moves.” That is a perfectly relevant fact, but it does not establish the correlation or causal explanation for the phenomenon being discussed. It tells us something about the objective solution of the position, but not necessarily why humans play the game the way they do, why certain openings become popular, or how relevant that solution is in practical play. And in a 1+0 antichess game, that theoretical fact can have very little practical relevance, as either player may run out of time long before the theoretical solution becomes meaningful. Lastly, I am genuinely curious: do you analyse the game, or do you primarily check the moves against the solution? What factors outside of the game itself do you value when preparing for a game of chess, presuming you play OTB chess? Do you consider your opponent's tendencies, habits, preferred positions, time management, psychological state, or previous games? Because those things are also part of the game, even though they do not appear in the game tree.
tpr

"do you analyse the game, or do you primarily check the moves against the solution?"

  • Both are the same. For antichess there is a solution, that helps.
    For chess there is not yet a complete solution, that makes it harder.

"What factors outside of the game itself do you value when preparing for a game of chess"

  • None, apart from my own health, fitness, sleep.

"presuming you play OTB chess?"

  • Yes, I do.

"Do you consider your opponent's tendencies, habits, preferred positions, time management, psychological state, or previous games?"

  • No, not at all.
    'I don’t believe in psychology. I believe in good moves.' - Fischer
    'When you sit down to play a game you should think only about the position, but not about the opponent.' - Capablanca
"do you analyse the game, or do you primarily check the moves against the solution?" * Both are the same. For antichess there is a solution, that helps. For chess there is not yet a complete solution, that makes it harder. "What factors outside of the game itself do you value when preparing for a game of chess" * None, apart from my own health, fitness, sleep. "presuming you play OTB chess?" * Yes, I do. "Do you consider your opponent's tendencies, habits, preferred positions, time management, psychological state, or previous games?" * No, not at all. 'I don’t believe in psychology. I believe in good moves.' - Fischer 'When you sit down to play a game you should think only about the position, but not about the opponent.' - Capablanca
Kellogzz

But coherently, when comparing our beliefs: 1. f4 is circumstantially a very strong move for me, because the factor “tpr” makes it a good move. Therefore, Fischer’s quote doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t consider your opponent when determining what constitutes a good move.

Surely you understand that Fischer's quote isn't that absolute and litteral in its meaning?

But coherently, when comparing our beliefs: 1. f4 is circumstantially a very strong move for me, because the factor “tpr” makes it a good move. Therefore, Fischer’s quote doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t consider your opponent when determining what constitutes a good move. Surely you understand that Fischer's quote isn't that absolute and litteral in its meaning?