The state of chess now and where I think it is headed

Fast time controls

No question in my mind that online chess has revolutionised chess for the better in this aspect. Chess is now portable, secure and convenient. I really see no reason unless for tournament purposes to play this type of chess on a physical chess board

Slow time control

With the advent of engine use online I don't think anyone right now is comfortable anything above 1-5 minute games online so the only choice then is to play otb. In longer games it's a better atmosphere to see how the opponent reacts and sit down without straining your eyes looking at a screen. This form of chess fosters positive social relationships and rivalries as well better than online play.

Play via communication

Postal correspondence is over and so are the tactics of those days of staring at a chess board and exhaustively going over tactical nuances. With very strong engines out now the only hope is to outstrategize an opponent and this is mostly done staring at a 2d chess board on a screen.

As the engines get stronger and centaur chess games of exceedingly high quality are added to the world database chess will probably not be mathematically solved but it will come close to being practically solved. Ie we will be able to tell which openings lead to draws even with perfect or unorthodox play and which openings strongly favour white or black even with perfect or unorthodox play.

Once chess becomes practically solved it will return to being a niche strategy game which will become antiquated and only played for the human element, for aspects like tenacity, determination, concentration etc. this won't be enough to hold society's brilliant thinkers though. A lot of intellectual competitions with no practicality are played but aren't interesting like spelling bees or pi memorisation. Chess will become like checkers and lose its mystique

due to the growing amount of people with ADHD, I believe faster time controls are the future of chess.

most scholastics tournaments are now making tournaments 15-20 minutes long instead of the usual 30-45 minutes.

[quote]As the engines get stronger and centaur chess games of exceedingly high quality are added to the world database chess will probably not be mathematically solved but it will come close to being practically solved. Ie we will be able to tell which openings lead to draws even with perfect or unorthodox play and which openings strongly favour white or black even with perfect or unorthodox play.[/quote]

 I don't think chess can be "solved" in a way that the solution is reproduceable for humans.

If there are such lines, that lead to a force draw, one can always deviate somewhere during the line chose another (may 0.01 pawns worse) line, so that those who learn "solved" chess openings will have to know every possible diviation on every possible move . And even if they do all that let's say against 1.e4 and 1.d4 then i'm going to play 1.b3 and they stand on their own ressources again.

So it might be possible that chess will be "solved" one day by computers but it will be impossible for humans to remember the ammount of data that is required to make use of this "solution" in one's own play. A lifespan will be too short to even read a fraction of the material.

This is similar to tablebases who now solved chess for 7 pieces, good luck memorizing the tabebases with a size of ~100 Terrabyte for that.

This is shot to hell as well. I recently saw a video where someone had a computer playing a blitz or bullet game on Chess.com.

Most of the rest of what you said was drivel.

I'm starting to wonder myself whats the point of continuing to learn chess if it likely out the door in another 10 years myself. I watched a video on here from David Pruess called pawns chains 101 where he went through some lines that basicaly went from opening through middle game to checkmate. WTF? Wheres the fun in playing playing moves in specific orders or else be at a disadvantage? Or playing moves in specific order else they are so move by move the game plays itself.

I get not all games are like that but the feel of it is. I mean you choose your opening, play the first 3 moves or whatever, then every 5 moves until move 20 you get to choose a move. In my head it seems that as a player gets better and their competition as well the worse this game is going to be. Peaple get excited when a new move is found in an opening. Give it a month and it will be anylized dry. It's line vs line until half the pieces are left on the board.

At my level this isnt even an issue becuase someone will find something far juicier instead needing to play lines. I'm just speculating here since I have no experience trying to imagine what it's going to be like for me. Honestly I'm thinking its not worth studying hardcore. Better to play with other lower ranked players who aren't studying beyond themes and tactics so it's stilll fun. It just appears to me the more you put in the less you will get unless its the challenge that is fun, not the game.

Plus, stuff like that was happening 10 years ago...

Well, that's not how it works.  Lines aren't analyzed dry in a month either.  Carlsen is world champion without special opening lines.  You don't have to be a low level player to rely on your ability and still be competitive.

Maybe in Kasparov´s age that was true, but I think that nowadays few GMs care that much about finding "shocking TN", they are just trying to stay competitive.

"Well thats not how it works" and then moving on is a nice way of dismissing the entire post. I think you missed the entire point by getting technical yet not providing anything of you own. It was about ideas not facts. "Carlsen is world champion" notice the world champion part in that sentance. Pro tip: were not all Carlson. On the house that one is. "special opening lines" I'm not talking about anything special. My entire post was about my overall view of how I see chess being at the high rated levels. As in the higher up you go the more the game will be playing lines. Sure some tactics come into play but again those are in the lines themselves as well. To sum it up the game plays itself half the time else suffer losses or checkmate. The other half the time you get to actually play the game. Again I'm speculating of what it's like for high competitive rated players.

I would think chess transforms from having fun cordinating an attack to taking line a, b, c to get to x position then playing with whats left. You have to play abc by the move else suffer. The only variance is the middle game or endgame position your left playing. In the video I linked it was a good expample of how the game practically plays itself due to checkmate or material losses. It's not all like that but the overal feel Is.

Anyways think I did good first time around stating what I meant to say clearly enough.

You speculated, talked about your feelings, and misspelled Carlsen's name.  Sorry to dismiss your ideas with facts.  You also didn't link a video.

You wonder if you'll be out the door in 10 years?  I've been playing 12 years.  Don't like the benefit of my experience?  That's fine.  Continue imagining how it might be.  Forums are for discussions though.  Consider writing in a journal if you don't want to be bothered by facts.

Pros memorize lines to protect the very small first move advantage.  If you're willing to give up equality, you have more freedom in the opening than in any other phase of the game.  If the "wrong" moves lead to disaster you're choosing to play very sharp lines.

Instructors often show improbable sidelines that lead to mate in beginner videos.  Firstly, beginners want to know what happens after captures.  Secondly they don't really understand an evaluation like "and white is better."  They can however understand checkmate.