Answers.Body: <p>Combinational Game Theory <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory" rel="nofollow">tells us</a> that <strong>solved</strong> games will always result in a draw if both players play optimally.  With non-solved games like chess, one can make a "draw" assumption safely in the start position : <strong>no side has played a sub-optimal move ... or any move for that matter.</strong></p>
  
  <p>There are some famous players who have <a href="http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz" rel="nofollow">postulated this</a> rigorously but when it comes to computer evaluations,  you have to take what the engine says with a grain of salt. They are great at analytical positions but are hit-and-miss in other places including the opening. </p>
  
  <p>Most engines will give White an evaluation of around +0.30 at the start (3/10ths of a pawn) but that is not significant to predict that White will be able to sustain a draw if he tries to <strong>only play for one</strong> even at Master level play.  Nor has Engine vs. Engine competition ever seen a near perfect record of draws <strong>all the time</strong>. There is too much uncertainty when dealing with complexity like the kind in chess or Go.</p>
  
  <p>In short, the answer to your question really should be "no". There is no such yardstick for draw-depth nor is there any value of attempting to statistically analyze a million games for inferences.</p>
  
  <p>Practically, a draw occurs at the highest levels of play when there is mutually nothing worth playing for (without incurring undue risk).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-12T07:47:13.803Z
Answers.Text: I think I'm not understanding correctly. Why should all solved games end in a draw?
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-11-13T20:22:51.547Z
Answers.Text: re-read the comment thread. My posted answer was inaccurate. A solved game implies one where you know if it is a win (for one side) or a draw.  My original answer makes a bold assumption that chess was already solved to be a draw which is not.
Answers.UserDisplayName: shivsky
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-03T02:53:20.077Z
Answers.Text: it's good to see "[The Theory of Steinitz](http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz)". thanks..
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ahmad Azwar Anas
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-03T23:44:43.333Z
Answers.Text: Combinatorial game theory does *not* tell us that solved games are always drawn if both players play optimally. A game might be a draw with best play, or it might be a win for one side with best play. A game being solved just means that we know which case it is.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ETD
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-04T02:18:24.610Z
Answers.Text: Ed Dean is correct: Combinatorial (not Combinational) Game Theory does not claim that solved games result in draws when played optimally. I suspect that the answerer misread this sentence from the Wikipedia article: "An important notion in CGT is that of solved game (which has several flavors), meaning for example that one can prove that the game of tic-tac-toe results in a draw if both players play optimally."
Answers.UserDisplayName: dfan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-04T02:45:01.577Z
Answers.Text: Apologies for the typo. It was meant to be Combinatorial. I stand corrected, I did misread that article. Not all solved turned based games are draws. For example if A and B each call out any # from 1 to 10 in turn and the other adds [1-10] to it until the first person going over 100 wins, one can see that this (clearly solved!) game is more of a hustle than a "drawn" game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: shivsky
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-10-03T02:41:56.713Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-10-03T03:19:28.507Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2013-10-03T03:19:28.507Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: shivsky
Body: <p>I've assumed about <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/how-many-moves-ahead-does-anand-calculate-in-his-mind">depth to take moves</a>, it seem to be unqualified question because no precise rule to define them.  </p>
  
  <p>As I played with chess engine, it seem return some value with can be defined as <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2526/endgame-knn-k-chess-puzzle-checkmate">draw position</a>, <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2836/make-checkmate-with-pawns-without-promotion">win position</a>, and lose position.</p>
  
  <p>Win or lose still can't be defined because it should take all optimization of evaluation, but how about draw??</p>
  
  <p>As chess deploy on board, it seem to believe that it still draw at first position.</p>
  
  <p>Is there some fixed depth value to generalized that we can say, "<strong>It still at draw position</strong>"??</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-10-04T02:24:12.810Z
Comments.Text: It is very hard to understand what you are trying to ask here. You might want to try to rewrite the question with the help of a native English speaker so that it is more clear.
Comments.UserDisplayName: dfan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-10-04T07:18:21.740Z
Comments.Text: sorry, my English bad.. but it seem that I've found the answer.. someone can help me to explain that..
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ahmad Azwar Anas
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-10-04T07:39:50.443Z
Comments.Text: if you are confuse with fixed depth value, It used at Houdini.. it used to limit Houdini depth search so it will return at certain depth.. as I know depth in Houdini means moves, if I said 8 fixed depth, it means that I will think till 8 moves forward constantly..
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ahmad Azwar Anas
Tags: <analysis>
Title: How many depth should require to get a draw decision?
ThreadText: # How many depth should require to get a draw decision?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-03)
  
  I've assumed about [depth to take moves](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/1408/how-many-moves-ahead-does-anand-calculate-in-his-mind), it seem to be unqualified question because no precise rule to define them.
  
  As I played with chess engine, it seem return some value with can be defined as [draw position](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2526/endgame-knn-k-chess-puzzle-checkmate), [win position](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2836/make-checkmate-with-pawns-without-promotion), and lose position.
  
  Win or lose still can't be defined because it should take all optimization of evaluation, but how about draw??
  
  As chess deploy on board, it seem to believe that it still draw at first position.
  
  Is there some fixed depth value to generalized that we can say, "**It still at draw position**"??
  
  **Tags:** analysis
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It is very hard to understand what you are trying to ask here. You might want to try to rewrite the question with the help of a native English speaker so that it is more clear.  
  > **username_0**: sorry, my English bad.. but it seem that I've found the answer.. someone can help me to explain that..  
  > **username_0**: if you are confuse with fixed depth value, It used at Houdini.. it used to limit Houdini depth search so it will return at certain depth.. as I know depth in Houdini means moves, if I said 8 fixed depth, it means that I will think till 8 moves forward constantly..  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2013-10-03. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  Combinational Game Theory [tells us](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_game_theory) that **solved** games will always result in a draw if both players play optimally. With non-solved games like chess, one can make a "draw" assumption safely in the start position : **no side has played a sub-optimal move ... or any move for that matter.**
  
  There are some famous players who have [postulated this](http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz) rigorously but when it comes to computer evaluations, you have to take what the engine says with a grain of salt. They are great at analytical positions but are hit-and-miss in other places including the opening.
  
  Most engines will give White an evaluation of around +0.30 at the start (3/10ths of a pawn) but that is not significant to predict that White will be able to sustain a draw if he tries to **only play for one** even at Master level play. Nor has Engine vs. Engine competition ever seen a near perfect record of draws **all the time**. There is too much uncertainty when dealing with complexity like the kind in chess or Go.
  
  In short, the answer to your question really should be "no". There is no such yardstick for draw-depth nor is there any value of attempting to statistically analyze a million games for inferences.
  
  Practically, a draw occurs at the highest levels of play when there is mutually nothing worth playing for (without incurring undue risk).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: it's good to see "[The Theory of Steinitz](http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz)". thanks..  
  > **username_4**: Combinatorial game theory does *not* tell us that solved games are always drawn if both players play optimally. A game might be a draw with best play, or it might be a win for one side with best play. A game being solved just means that we know which case it is.  
  > **username_1**: Ed Dean is correct: Combinatorial (not Combinational) Game Theory does not claim that solved games result in draws when played optimally. I suspect that the answerer misread this sentence from the Wikipedia article: "An important notion in CGT is that of solved game (which has several flavors), meaning for example that one can prove that the game of tic-tac-toe results in a draw if both players play optimally."  
  > **username_2**: Apologies for the typo. It was meant to be Combinatorial. I stand corrected, I did misread that article. Not all solved turned based games are draws. For example if A and B each call out any # from 1 to 10 in turn and the other adds [1-10] to it until the first person going over 100 wins, one can see that this (clearly solved!) game is more of a hustle than a "drawn" game.  
  > **username_3**: I think I'm not understanding correctly. Why should all solved games end in a draw?  
  > **username_2**: re-read the comment thread. My posted answer was inaccurate. A solved game implies one where you know if it is a win (for one side) or a draw.  My original answer makes a bold assumption that chess was already solved to be a draw which is not.  
  
  ---
  
  