Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Is Chess Finally Dead?


  • 6 months ago · Quote · #61

    cortman

    LOl tigerprowl. Good one. :)

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #62

    tubebender

    NotAGM wrote:

    Conspiracy theorists know that chess is dead, and has been for a long time. We are all being kept in the dark about it - too much money at stake, the computer industry, FIDE even (some whisper) Chess.com itself.

    The truth is that chess was killed by the discovery of ultimate winning opening line, a line against which there is no possible defence. 

    The story is that such a line does exist and was first discovered around 1896 in Berlin.  The young challenger repeatedly beat (some say) Lasker, others that it was Stienitz.  In truth no one is sure who it was.  In the end the young upstart explained the opening line.  The champion studied it  for a long while.  He realised that chess was dead, that his living would be over, his next move was to kill the young challenger and destroy all evidence of the line. 

    If you rediscover the line for yourself you will immediately be granted the title of grandmaster.  It will be explained that you must make none sensical moves in pre-arranged games to obscure the secret and should you ever be foolish enough to reveal it...

    Reminds of an old story with the same theme: A real woodpusher visited a master and showed that he found a way to always draw with Black and to almost always win with White unless Black knew the exact drawing moves. The master stabbed the duffer to death with a giant bishop from a display set right before he could leave the master`s house. The police investigated, found the body in the basement and as he was lead away he was heard screaming things about how his massive book collection could have been rendered useless yet he saved the Royal Game from ruin. I`ve also heard that magicians used to kill their colleagues if they dared to reveal the secrets of their deception. Would it ever come to that? Probably not, but the story, as you heard it, is just another example of a type of an "urban myth"

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #63

    tubebender

    AlyssaaS wrote:
    socialista schreef:
    AlyssaaS wrote:

    no one is moving in my online chess games, so i think chess is really dead :(

    I assume that they have hopeless positions, right?

    i think everyone is just scared of me!

    A pretty woman like you is certainly disarming and distracting--a complement to you. Your games look pretty good, too.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #64

    tubebender

    Mandy711 wrote:

    I think professional chess is slowly dying. Even patzers nowadays comments and criticize plays of super GMs. On the other hand, more people are playing chess than ever. And many have become strong players thanks to abundance of chess informations like chess books. Chess software and databases also contributed to the growth of chess players.

    They can intelligently criticize because they have Fritz and Houdini programs.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #65

    FirebrandX

    tubebender wrote:
    Mandy711 wrote:

    I think professional chess is slowly dying. Even patzers nowadays comments and criticize plays of super GMs. On the other hand, more people are playing chess than ever. And many have become strong players thanks to abundance of chess informations like chess books. Chess software and databases also contributed to the growth of chess players.

    They can intelligently criticize because they have Fritz and Houdini programs.

    Not really. All they can do it point out such-and-such move was a mistake, but they have no idea other than the computer telling them this. They can't for example, understand the difference between a difficult "equal" position from any other position the computer evaluates that way.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #66

    SocialPanda

    tmpacc2012 wrote:

     

    besides, it is always possible for a GM to beat a computer program. he just has to play it many times and find out its strengths and weaknesses. thats why the programmers keep changing their code and coming out with new releases to prevent this from happening.

    Well, this is just because they need to keep selling.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #67

    KRAPARSOV

    Chess will never be dead.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #68

    temetvince

    Dead? You view computers enhancing chess play as a bad thing... But chess has advanced to new levels thanks to the use of computers. Computers have raised so many things to completely new levels. "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

    Saying that computers killed chess is like saying computers killed the human race. Sure, computers can beat humans at chess. But human chess still has value and is augmented by computers. The day human chess holds no value is the day we (or they) decide humans hold no value. Until that day, computers will continue to enhance our lives, hobbies, passions, culture, art, medicine, and race exponentally more than we would have naturally evolved without them. Chess isn't dead; it's finally getting played at the level it deserves, no longer being artificially handicapped by, well, us.

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #69

    Artch

    FirebrandX wrote:
    tubebender wrote:
    Mandy711 wrote:

    I think professional chess is slowly dying. Even patzers nowadays comments and criticize plays of super GMs. On the other hand, more people are playing chess than ever. And many have become strong players thanks to abundance of chess informations like chess books. Chess software and databases also contributed to the growth of chess players.

    They can intelligently criticize because they have Fritz and Houdini programs.

    Not really. All they can do it point out such-and-such move was a mistake, but they have no idea other than the computer telling them this. They can't for example, understand the difference between a difficult "equal" position from any other position the computer evaluates that way.

    I like an anecdote Aagaard tells about a tournament where Quality Chess was hosting and holding post-game audience talks and such.

    A journalist criticized a move by GM Nick Pert in front of Aagaard, on the grounds that it missed the "obvious solution" pointed out by Fritz.  Andrew Martin then held the group post-mortem, where it took the audience full of class, expert, and lower-titled players 24 guesses out of 37 legal moves to come up with the correct "obvious solution."

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #70

    psythos

    "NotAGM wrote:

    Conspiracy theorists know that chess is dead, and has been for a long time. We are all being kept in the dark about it - too much money at stake, the computer industry, FIDE even (some whisper) Chess.com itself.

    The truth is that chess was killed by the discovery of ultimate winning opening line, a line against which there is no possible defence. 

    The story is that such a line does exist and was first discovered around 1896 in Berlin.  The young challenger repeatedly beat (some say) Lasker, others that it was Stienitz.  In truth no one is sure who it was.  In the end the young upstart explained the opening line.  The champion studied it  for a long while.  He realised that chess was dead, that his living would be over, his next move was to kill the young challenger and destroy all evidence of the line. 

    If you rediscover the line for yourself you will immediately be granted the title of grandmaster.  It will be explained that you must make none sensical moves in pre-arranged games to obscure the secret and should you ever be foolish enough to reveal it..."

    Who is Adolph Hitler

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #71

    psythos

    I always find this topic interesting because if chess is dead because machines do it better and the chess board reflects the current paradigm of thought than what will happen when all the jobs a human can do, are done better and cheaper by robots? If chess is dead than civilization is doomed too. Personally I welcome our new robotic overlords and hope to be kept alive as a house pet or agent to round up any usurpers against the dawn of the new robot age

  • 6 months ago · Quote · #72

    TheGreatOogieBoogie

    psythos wrote:

    "NotAGM wrote:

    Conspiracy theorists know that chess is dead, and has been for a long time. We are all being kept in the dark about it - too much money at stake, the computer industry, FIDE even (some whisper) Chess.com itself.

    The truth is that chess was killed by the discovery of ultimate winning opening line, a line against which there is no possible defence. 

    The story is that such a line does exist and was first discovered around 1896 in Berlin.  The young challenger repeatedly beat (some say) Lasker, others that it was Stienitz.  In truth no one is sure who it was.  In the end the young upstart explained the opening line.  The champion studied it  for a long while.  He realised that chess was dead, that his living would be over, his next move was to kill the young challenger and destroy all evidence of the line. 

    If you rediscover the line for yourself you will immediately be granted the title of grandmaster.  It will be explained that you must make none sensical moves in pre-arranged games to obscure the secret and should you ever be foolish enough to reveal it..."

    Who is Adolph Hitler

    Ahh, so the truth comes out about that obscure Martial Arts sect in the Himalayas huh?  Any one of them could beat Kasparov blindfolded with pawn and move. 

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #73

    john2054

    If you look at the last wc match between carlson and anand, you can see that the psychological component of the game was a major deciding factor. This is something that computers will never be able to do. They can calculate checkmates sure, and even imitate the chess tactics/statergy, but by very definition a computer will never be able to *play* chess, and so i wouldn't worry. As a bynote i will add that i taught another kid how to play over facebook in the space of about an hour last night. Winning chess, is only half of what makes chess great!?

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #74

    DrSpudnik

    The OP's account is closed. Maybe he's dead?!? Surprised

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #75

    Novagames

    Stop making Idiotic jokes...

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #76

    kleelof

    As long as checkers is around, chess will have nothing to fear.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #77

    Indubioproaggredi

    ok - its prooven that engines are better than humans now - but it is also prooven that a good player who use an engine is much better than a stand-alone playing engine - its called freestyle and there are already price-tournaments on that kind of play. if you use a cluster with about - lets say 8xi7 computers with 256 GB Ram and houdini or rybka - he would not have a little chance in these freestyle groups - even if a freestyler is using only a single PC with 4 GB Ram.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #78

    john2054

    Perhaps i shouls expand on the point i made finally. Winning chess is only half of chess. A computer can calculate to infinity, but it cannot play with grace or humour or mercy. For the beginners, it must surely seem that computers have it all under wraps. But they CAN NOT PLAY CHESS?!? When i taught this lad how to play yesterday, was this chess not as important than any other speed chess/club chess going on across the net at the moment. Children are the future and a blessing, and spending real time playing real games with them, is something that a computer will never be able to do. So as a result game over. Computers can never play chess so stop worshipping them!

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #79

    fiddletim

    john2054 wrote:

    Perhaps i shouls expand on the point i made finally. Winning chess is only half of chess. A computer can calculate to infinity, but it cannot play with grace or humour or mercy. For the beginners, it must surely seem that computers have it all under wraps. But they CAN NOT PLAY CHESS?!? When i taught this lad how to play yesterday, was this chess not as important than any other speed chess/club chess going on across the net at the moment. Children are the future and a blessing, and spending real time playing real games with them, is something that a computer will never be able to do. So as a result game over. Computers can never play chess so stop worshipping them!

    thankyou chessmate. computers are amazing however only capable of calculations using the data supplied from the actual play/games of chess players.  The MMPI, MInnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is an example of this type of satistical analysis and one of the first efforts to use this satistical analysis methods. The test formulated at the U of Minnesota in the late 1930's/1940's has 500 plus questions. It was intially formulated by asking..say..a control group of individuals with a diagonosis of "schizophrenia" these 500+ ?'s. using this data from ? answers then cross-referencing/correlating/trial and error the MMPI was fromulated on "How" these groups answered. if you read the test...i administered the test many times to indivduals who for one reason or another couldnt read it...you would be struck by seeming meaninglessness of the questions in regard to one's personality or personality disorder. the brilliance in the test comes from this seemingly random meaninginglessness. the MMPI is use today and has been improved upon the addition of the number of cases and improved case sharing/reporting. its my understanding that the "chess engines" have at their disposal millions of OUR games. like stated an amazing tool but lacking imagination.


Back to Top

Post your reply: