If he’s allowed to choose black or white, he could force Kasparov to play himself. Each loop he just includes whatever Kasparov did at the end of the chain last time. Eventually, this will result in a guaranteed win. He just needs to then reverse the side and replay.
After the match: “How did you know to move your Bishop to B6? The intricacies of the foresight of your play know no bounds against the delicate intentions of my best laid plans.”
“I, uh, just had a feeling, ya know, that, yeah, you were gonna go there, and that uh, I should go to G16 to get you there, and that the, uhm, bishop was it?, was probs the best thing to go there, and so yeah I jumped him there and nailed your queen. Yeah.”
While that’s a good idea, I’m not convinced your conclusion is correct. But maybe I’m just missing something. Why would they eventually arrive at a win, and not a draw?
There might be some complexity in a draw. You might need to get creative at that point. The question is, would he play himself to a draw, or to a win for 1 side.
It’s a common stage trick though. A single "master plays 11 games of chess at once. He’s actually just playing 1, against the weakest player. All the rest are paired off, and he just transfers their move across.
That sounds really cool as a concept, but doesn’t that require 1. An even distribution of black and white, and 2., doesn’t that guarantee a 50/50 winrate on the event?
Because if it’s a draw, they play again until it isn’t. Maybe there will be some dead ends and tracking back to take another branch but in the end the man can find a result that’s a win.
If he’s allowed to choose black or white, he could force Kasparov to play himself. Each loop he just includes whatever Kasparov did at the end of the chain last time. Eventually, this will result in a guaranteed win. He just needs to then reverse the side and replay.
After the match: “How did you know to move your Bishop to B6? The intricacies of the foresight of your play know no bounds against the delicate intentions of my best laid plans.”
“I, uh, just had a feeling, ya know, that, yeah, you were gonna go there, and that uh, I should go to G16 to get you there, and that the, uhm, bishop was it?, was probs the best thing to go there, and so yeah I jumped him there and nailed your queen. Yeah.”
While that’s a good idea, I’m not convinced your conclusion is correct. But maybe I’m just missing something. Why would they eventually arrive at a win, and not a draw?
There might be some complexity in a draw. You might need to get creative at that point. The question is, would he play himself to a draw, or to a win for 1 side.
It’s a common stage trick though. A single "master plays 11 games of chess at once. He’s actually just playing 1, against the weakest player. All the rest are paired off, and he just transfers their move across.
That sounds really cool as a concept, but doesn’t that require 1. An even distribution of black and white, and 2., doesn’t that guarantee a 50/50 winrate on the event?
It does, though winning 7 out of 13 games of chess is still quite an achievement, particularly when the players are of a very high level.
Because if it’s a draw, they play again until it isn’t. Maybe there will be some dead ends and tracking back to take another branch but in the end the man can find a result that’s a win.