Is Chess Finally Dead?

Seems like you are frustrated. Yes chess can be about memorization, but nothing is so clear as play this that, and this and then good game. Otherwise all computer games would end in one result. 

So you created your chess.com profile today only to state that "chess is finally dead"?

Nothing engines can do will affect the average chess club...

Carlsen won games number 5,6 and 9 in his recent match with Anand. Can you please tell us which of those wins were due to line memorization?

Good point guys!......I think at average level chess is probably still interesting. At highest level, yeah it probably needs to be all Rapid chess if the trend continues.

Anyone from San Diego area? I want to give away my chess books to anyone who's interested. I will probably keep 2 books (on chess problems and brilliancies) but give away all the other theory books for free. (yes I'm a little frustrated with learning chess theory :))) Let  me know if anyone is from San Diego, California and wants these books.

You are overestimating the computer's role in chess.  Yes, it's an important role, but there are way too many permutations that following out preparation to the end is impractical so they still have great understanding to fall back on.  One of my early rookie mistakes was trying to memorize computer lines so deep because they weren't actually played.  I still know some Grunfeld lines 30 moves deep and I don't even play it anymore, even those specific lines as white.  Now I memorize some lines and positions from Fine's Basic Chess Endgames, though I only know about 10 or 20 out of over 1000 positions in it by heart, and that's counting the very easy ones like king in front of the pawn opposition exercise, queen keeps checking the king along the light squares until it forks king and rook and wins it, the losing a move one in the pawn section, and the Philidor queen one where the king marches up to f6 to avoid perpetual and win the pawn too.  Though some like Morphy-Rivierre's rook endgame where black wins I only remember because I'd practice it to death, both variations.

The idea isn't to memorize the exact positions but take the general principles and themes with us. 

Even if classical chess is solved someday we still have 960 Chess and could invent a more complex variant or even a more dynamic one.  In physical sports like soccer or wrestling weaknesses are more dynamic and the higher the level the faster said weaknesses close, so accuracy, agility, and dexterity become very important, and stamina is needed to keep pace.  Strength is great to have but not as important as the others (though like anything else there's a basic floor for proficiency) unless you're a competitive weightlifter or maybe a football lineman. 

In summary we can conclude that a game that more emulates sports, but with mental rather than physical qualities should prop up as it's hard to solve something so dynamic whereas chess is turn based and static. 

Frankly I think it has never been better to be a chess amateur... Abundance of learning resources... Someone to play on the internet  at any time of the day... Excellent software that is quite cheap or even free... I've switched most of my training to iPhone and can do it while traveling to and from work...

Very good points TheGreatoogieboogie ....however, I am not sure if there are robots that exist in other sports like Tennis that are capable of beating their human world champion :). But your points are valid.

Uri65.....you're right, I guess it's still good for amateurs. I am just a little frustrated about following chess at top level. New players play so fast, it makes me suspect that they've analyzed and checked their variations on computers beforehand.

Well, I'd be surprised if any of those games were fully original. He probably analyzed all those games on a computer first. Neither players played anything radically new. If not for time limits, they'd have all ended in boring draws. Since Vishy's getting older, he blundered and it doesn't take a Carlsen to win after those blunders. Carlsen was the better memorizer until that point. (I am exaggerating a little of course...lol) But I'm sure computers played a big role in those wins and in his preparation otherwise he wouldn't have been able to play as fast as he did. 

You should be kidding??? Two of those games were about 60 moves long!!!

Not as dead as tic tac toe ...

I really dont get this, if grandmaster are memorizing openings then so what? They still have o play the middle and endgame don't they? If any thing less opening innaccuracys is a good thing

or checkers... and people still play it even though it is completely solved.

Another problem is that they are slowly shortening reflecion's time more and more and more. If a player has more time to reflect, he can be more creative, while due to shorter time control top players must know a lot of line or they lose lot of time in the opening.

I love tic tac toe!  hahahahaha  I dont think there is such think as chess going dead...maybe players get frustrated and quit but chess is a wonderful mind game. 

I hope, they don't crucify him.

If players quit out of frustration, then chess has finally won the battle. I can't accept that ...

PatzerLars wrote:

Mersaphe wrote:

Carlsen is the Messiah. He will liberate us from these silicon beasts

I hope, they don't crucify him.

Hahahahaha good one

As long as the game continues to evolve, I can't see chess going away. Just wait until the next super godlike-GM appears. The game will keep growing!