Searching for the truth in chess

@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #10:
> (...) I think you should say what particular question you are trying to answer. example: Is a particular line a good choice for a side according to the current best engine, or are their better ones that are unknown. Why should we say 'with the current best engine'? Because a future engine may refute it. Then claim to 'known the truth' is only fleeting.

> A completely different question is the one of what to play under particular circumstances when the opponents are two particular humans because this factors in a psychological dimension (...)

Good point! Certainly, I could have proposed a specific chess issue, but I wanted to give colleagues here freedom to mention chess moments they find controversial or unclear. On the psychological issue, as you say, it's a different topic.

I think all we can do is take our best guess at the "Truth". Consider Tal for example. He would often sac something knowing full well that there may be a refutation somewhere, but so long as he couldn't find the refutation when he was calculating, and so long as he believed that the sacrifices would create a situation where his opponent would have to defend a difficult situation with many chances to go wrong, he would do it. If you are playing against stockfish, you might want to rethink it. But against a human opponent, if you can make an interesting move that creates difficult complications for your opponent to overcome, you should seriously consider the move. I am not saying be reckless, but truth of it is that even an attack that can be refuted with perfect defense will often succeed against a human opponent because the human opponent is unlikely to defend perfectly in complicated positions. Stockfish has refuted many of Tal's attacks where he went all in, but that doesnt take away from their brilliance in my opinion. Basically, if you look at a candidate move and think, "Man I wouldn't want to have to try to defend against this", then calculate it as best as you can and if it still looks good, go for it. If stockfish refutes it later, who cares. The "truth" may be that it was unsound, but in a practical game it could be totally viable.

@Le_Patzer83 said in #12:
> I think all we can do is take our best guess at the "Truth". Consider Tal for example. He would often sac something knowing full well that there may be a refutation somewhere, but so long as he couldn't find the refutation when he was calculating, and so long as he believed that the sacrifices would create a situation where his opponent would have to defend a difficult situation with many chances to go wrong, he would do it. If you are playing against stockfish, you might want to rethink it. But against a human opponent, if you can make an interesting move that creates difficult complications for your opponent to overcome, you should seriously consider the move. I am not saying be reckless, but truth of it is that even an attack that can be refuted with perfect defense will often succeed against a human opponent because the human opponent is unlikely to defend perfectly in complicated positions. Stockfish has refuted many of Tal's attacks where he went all in, but that doesnt take away from their brilliance in my opinion. Basically, if you look at a candidate move and think, "Man I wouldn't want to have to try to defend against this", then calculate it as best as you can and if it still looks good, go for it. If stockfish refutes it later, who cares. The "truth" may be that it was unsound, but in a practical game it could be totally viable.

I really like what you have written about the "truth" in chess. But I will clarify my idea when starting this discussion. First, it's not my intention, and I don't think any chess lover wants to, to disqualify the creations of Tal, Petrosian, Morphy, Kasparov, etc., on the board. Over twenty-five years I have analyzed various famous sacrifices, several were objectively inaccurate, but that has not diminished my respect for those sacrifices. Secondly, the question I have proposed aims to examine, from an academic point of view, controversial or unclear chess moments (sacrifices, for example), of which there are many in chess history. Third, in my original proposal I not only mentioned the use of chess engines, I also mentioned resorting to the wisdom of the best chess analysts.

@Professor74 You sir have mentioned Fischer. I would like to discover some opening systems for some starting positions in Fischerandom.

@Professor74 said in #1:
> Former world champion Robert Fischer said chess was about the search for truth.

Yes, but it is widely acknowledged today Bobby was completely nuts. Maybe the truth he spoke of is not even remotely accessible for those of us who are still sane ?

@boilingFrog said in #15:
> Yes, but it is widely acknowledged today Bobby was completely nuts. Maybe the truth he spoke of is not even remotely accessible for those of us who are still sane?

Good point. It has been said that to achieve full knowledge you have to be a little crazy...

I have been through many games to see what the Stockfish Engine thinks about many games , Tartakower sacked a Rook vs Marcosy & it's sound ... Just go over Study games with the engine on @Professor74 The Only game Botvinnik ever played vs Fischer for example etc etc ...

Bronstein vs Spassky one of these left a Rook hanging with check o yes Spassky & Bronstein didn't take it check that game with Stockfish @Professor74

@ThunderClap said in #17:
> I have been through many games to see what the Stockfish Engine thinks about many games , Tartakower sacked a Rook vs Marcosy & it's sound ... Just go over Study games with the engine on @Professor74 The Only game Botvinnik ever played vs Fischer for example etc etc ...

Correct! Engines don't own all the truth. That is why in this discussion I included at the beginning the analysis by excellent chess analysts (human beings). About that game between Botvinnik and Fischer, it's interesting to know that an investigation involving human and "non-human" analysts resulted in Black winning through a fine Zugzwang maneuver.

In the interest of the truth, please post game here !