Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

What will be the impact of chess being solved?


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #141

    nameno1had

    ilikeflags wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    TonyH wrote:

    what happened to marathons and track events once cars solved the rapid transportation problem? 

    People started taking PED's to get faster...lol

    lulz!!!

    You are paying me so much attention, I am begining to think that you like me or something...is rather creepy...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #142

    ilikeflags

    yeah

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #143

    nameno1had

    ilikeflags wrote:

    yeah

    If you like flags so much, why don't you change the one you display more often?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #144

    Ziryab

    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    LeeBradbury wrote:

    Chess will never be solved.  No computer and no man will ever manage that.

    I think a computer could in theory someday, but who cares? If you can't memorize the lines, its a mute point anyway...

    I agree with your last statement, but your first is actually incorrect, at least with respect to digital computers. If quantum computing becomes a practical reality, then there is a theoretical possibility of a soft solution. But that is generally not what people mean by "solved."

    Well said.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #145

    TheGrobe

    "Soft solution" presumably meaning ultra-weakly solved (i.e. only knowing if it's a draw or a win for white/black, but not how) as opposed to weakly or strongly. I'm pretty sure ultra-weakly would be the limit of quantum computing, and even that is out of reach for conventional computing.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #146

    Kingpatzer

    Correct, TheGrobe.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #147

    nameno1had

    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    LeeBradbury wrote:

    Chess will never be solved.  No computer and no man will ever manage that.

    I think a computer could in theory someday, but who cares? If you can't memorize the lines, its a mute point anyway...

    I agree with your last statement, but your first is actually incorrect, at least with respect to digital computers. If quantum computing becomes a practical reality, then there is a theoretical possibility of a soft solution. But that is generally not what people mean by "solved."

    Oh, I thought I was actually wrong with respect to the color of text I chose...I guess you assume I thought digital computers were always going to be the best we could achieve? I was referring to computers actually capable of a complete solution. Not a "soft" solution.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #148

    Kingpatzer

    nameno1had wrote:
    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    LeeBradbury wrote:

    Chess will never be solved.  No computer and no man will ever manage that.

    I think a computer could in theory someday, but who cares? If you can't memorize the lines, its a mute point anyway...

    I agree with your last statement, but your first is actually incorrect, at least with respect to digital computers. If quantum computing becomes a practical reality, then there is a theoretical possibility of a soft solution. But that is generally not what people mean by "solved."

    Oh, I thought I was actually wrong with respect to the color of text I chose...I guess you assume I thought digital computers were always going to be the best we could achieve? I was referring to computers actually capable of a complete solution. Not a "soft" solution.

    There is no known possible, nor any theorized potential, technological advance which can do better than a soft solution to the problem.

    At issue is not how cool technology can be, but simple limits cast by the sheer size of the problem.  At issue is not our imagination but math. 10^120 is not a small number.

    To state that "a computer could in theory . . ." do something is predicated upon existing computer science theory combined with what is known about the problem being discussed. In that context, your statement is simply wrong in a very easy to demonstrate way. There is no theoretical basis today by which a complete solution for chess can be computed. The current state of theory for addressing polynomial time problems has quantum computing as the cutting edge of what is theoretically possible, and that solution is not up to the task of providing a complete solution to the chess game space for the reasons discussed here.

    The best you can hope to achieve is the soft solution that quantum computing may provide. And even that "may" is likely many decades away from a reality.

    If by "in theory" rather something like "in science fiction which has no basis on anything other than unlimited human imagination" then of course no one can disagree with you, but it is also a far less interesting and meaningful claim.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #149

    nameno1had

    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:
    LeeBradbury wrote:

    Chess will never be solved.  No computer and no man will ever manage that.

    I think a computer could in theory someday, but who cares? If you can't memorize the lines, its a mute point anyway...

    I agree with your last statement, but your first is actually incorrect, at least with respect to digital computers. If quantum computing becomes a practical reality, then there is a theoretical possibility of a soft solution. But that is generally not what people mean by "solved."

    Oh, I thought I was actually wrong with respect to the color of text I chose...I guess you assume I thought digital computers were always going to be the best we could achieve? I was referring to computers actually capable of a complete solution. Not a "soft" solution.

    There is no known possible, nor any theorized potential, technological advance which can do better than a soft solution to the problem.

    At issue is not how cool technology can be, but simple limits cast by the sheer size of the problem.  At issue is not our imagination but math. 10^120 is not a small number.

    To state that "a computer could in theory . . ." do something is predicated upon existing computer science theory combined with what is known about the problem being discussed. In that context, your statement is simply wrong in a very prima facia way. There is no theoretical basis today by which a complete solution for chess can be computed.

    The best you can hope to achieve is the soft solution that quantum computing may provide. And even that "may" is likely many decades away from a reality.

    If by "in theory" rather something like "in science fiction which has no basis on anything other than unlimited human imagination" then of course no one can disagree with you, but it is also a far less interesting and meaningful claim.

    It seems to me that you would rather just say I was wrong instead giving humanity the benefit of the doubt, as to whether we could develop a way to overcome, what you insist isn't ever likely to be. I guess many others, who chose to dream or believe humanity would overcome an "immovable" obstacle, experienced the same problem.

    I enjoy sitting here enjoying their inventions, while thinking about the scoffers and mockers turning over in their graves. I guess I'll have to get used to it.

    I will however make it a point, to point out people like you, who obviously enjoy trying to make other people look bad. If you yourself was so intelligent and understanding of how things actually work as you try to let on to be, you would have caught on to this by now and realized the stupidity of that sort of behavior. I guess its true some of us learn more slowly than others.

    P.S.

    Its only truly interesting to you if I could be construed as wrong?....hmmm

    interesting...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #150

    ilikeflags

    you've got a complex dude.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #151

    nameno1had

    I am glad you let me know about my complications. What would have ever done without your "expert" diagnosis. I guess I'll go away feeling better knowing that someone else besides me, realizes my complexities...Laughing

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #152

    Kingpatzer

    nameno1had wrote:

    It seems to me that you would rather just say I was wrong instead giving humanity the benefit of the doubt, as to whether we could develop a way to overcome, what you insist isn't ever likely to be. I guess many others, who chose to dream or believe humanity would overcome an "immovable" obstacle, experienced the same problem.

    I enjoy sitting here enjoying their inventions, while thinking about the scoffers and mockers turning over in their graves. I guess I'll have to get used to it.

    I will however make it a point, to point out people like you, who obviously enjoy trying to make other people look bad. If you yourself was so intelligent and understanding of how things actually work as you try to let on to be, you would have caught on to this by now and realized the stupidity of that sort of behavior. I guess its true some of us learn more slowly than others.

    P.S.

    Its only truly interesting to you if I could be construed as wrong?....hmmm

    interesting...

    *sigh*

    First, saying you are making a statement that is factually incorrect on it's face is in no way expressing my view of humanity's ingenuity or potential. It's a comment on your statement as it was written.

    And yes, I do place limits on what people can do. We can't make square circles, for example, and I have no problem saying we never will be able to do so.

    I do not know what advances in technology are to come, and it maybe that some day we can compute a complete solution to chess. However, that is not theoretically possible today.

    As for what's truly interesting to me -- it has nothing to do with if you are wrong or not, it is if a claim has meaning beyond an individual or not. "I can imagine a world where there are square circles" is perhaps an engaging tale about your inner imagination, but it's not particularly interesting beyond that. By contrast, "I can show you how to draw a square circle" is a fascinating claim if true because it will change the way I view the world.

    If you know of a theoretical basis for saying a full solution set for chess can be computed, then share it. Publish it. Heck, I'll help you get it written up and put out there because it will change the world.

    But, I'm fairly confident that you have no such theory.

    What I do find fascinating is how personally you seem take someone pointing out your opinion was not factually based. Take a pill dude, we're all wrong about lots of things, lots of times. It's great to want to stand up for your ideas, but when there is no factual basis by which to base them it just makes you look silly.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #153

    nameno1had

    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    It seems to me that you would rather just say I was wrong instead giving humanity the benefit of the doubt, as to whether we could develop a way to overcome, what you insist isn't ever likely to be. I guess many others, who chose to dream or believe humanity would overcome an "immovable" obstacle, experienced the same problem.

    I enjoy sitting here enjoying their inventions, while thinking about the scoffers and mockers turning over in their graves. I guess I'll have to get used to it.

    I will however make it a point, to point out people like you, who obviously enjoy trying to make other people look bad. If you yourself was so intelligent and understanding of how things actually work as you try to let on to be, you would have caught on to this by now and realized the stupidity of that sort of behavior. I guess its true some of us learn more slowly than others.

    P.S.

    Its only truly interesting to you if I could be construed as wrong?....hmmm

    interesting...

    *sigh*

    First, saying you are making a statement that is factually incorrect on it's face is in no way expressing my view of humanity's ingenuity or potential. It's a comment on your statement as it was written.

    And yes, I do place limits on what people can do. We can't make square circles, for example, and I have no problem saying we never will be able to do so.

    I do not know what advances in technology are to come, and it maybe that some day we can compute a complete solution to chess. However, that is not theoretically possible today.

    As for what's truly interesting to me -- it has nothing to do with if you are wrong or not, it is if a claim has meaning beyond an individual or not. "I can imagine a world where there are square circles" is perhaps an engaging tale about your inner imagination, but it's not particularly interesting beyond that. By contrast, "I can show you how to draw a square circle" is a fascinating claim if true because it will change the way I view the world.

    If you know of a theoretical basis for saying a full solution set for chess can be computed, then share it. Publish it. Heck, I'll help you get it written up and put out there because it will change the world.

    But, I'm fairly confident that you have no such theory.

    What I do find fascinating is how personally you seem take someone pointing out your opinion was not factually based. Take a pill dude, we're all wrong about lots of things, lots of times. It's great to want to stand up for your ideas, but when there is no factual basis by which to base them it just makes you look silly.

    You admitted to the truth in the first few statements you made. You place limits on what humanity(including me) can do. The truth is, you don't. You'd like to think you are some sort of qualified expert to determine what we can and can't do or who is right or wrong about their ideas.

    You opinion doesn't rule us or dictate to us whether or not our ideas are wrong. Thanks for clarifying for us what you really think. I appreciate that.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #154

    Kingpatzer

    nameno1had wrote:

    You admitted to the truth in the first few statements you made. You place limits on what humanity(including me) can do. The truth is, you don't. You'd like to think you are some sort of qualified expert to determine what we can and can't do or who is right or wrong about their ideas.

    You opinion doesn't rule us or dictate to us whether or not our ideas are wrong. Thanks for clarifying for us what you really think. I appreciate that.

    No, my opinion doesn't dictate if an idea is wrong or not. The quality of the idea does that all on it's own.

    So let us return to the idea in question: what is the theoretical basis upon which you base your claim that in theory chess can be completely solved at some future point.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #155

    nameno1had

    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    You admitted to the truth in the first few statements you made. You place limits on what humanity(including me) can do. The truth is, you don't. You'd like to think you are some sort of qualified expert to determine what we can and can't do or who is right or wrong about their ideas.

    You opinion doesn't rule us or dictate to us whether or not our ideas are wrong. Thanks for clarifying for us what you really think. I appreciate that.

    No, my opinion doesn't dictate if an idea is wrong or not. The quality of the idea does that all on it's own.

    So let us return to the idea in question: what is the theoretical basis upon which you base your claim that in theory chess can be completely solved at some future point.

    I'll decide the directions of my converstions, while dealing wih someone who thinks its ok, to take statements out of context and then decide I am wrong. Especially when the same individual wants me to just forget about how they dont want to make themselves subject to me, when I put them,in the same scenario. You must really think I am moron. I'm not making myself subject to your double standards and giving you anymore fodder...are you on crack dude?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #156

    TheGrobe

    The problem here is that you have no idea what you're talking about, but refuse to be told.

    You should actually try to understand a subject before spouting pseudo-expertise about it in public. You'll end up looking much less foolish.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #157

    ilikeflags

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago · Quote · #158

    Kingpatzer

    nameno1had wrote:

    I'll decide the directions of my converstions, while dealing wih someone who thinks its ok, to take statements out of context and then decide I am wrong. Especially when the same individual wants me to just forget about how they dont want to make themselves subject to me, when I put them,in the same scenario. You must really think I am moron. I'm not making myself subject to your double standards and giving you anymore fodder...are you on crack dude?

    Exactly how did I take your statement out of context?

    And trust me, I don't think you are a moron.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #159

    TheGrobe

    Haha.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #160

    theopenfile

    nameno1had wrote:
    Kingpatzer wrote:
    nameno1had wrote:

    It seems to me that you would rather just say I was wrong instead giving humanity the benefit of the doubt, as to whether we could develop a way to overcome, what you insist isn't ever likely to be. I guess many others, who chose to dream or believe humanity would overcome an "immovable" obstacle, experienced the same problem.

    I enjoy sitting here enjoying their inventions, while thinking about the scoffers and mockers turning over in their graves. I guess I'll have to get used to it.

    I will however make it a point, to point out people like you, who obviously enjoy trying to make other people look bad. If you yourself was so intelligent and understanding of how things actually work as you try to let on to be, you would have caught on to this by now and realized the stupidity of that sort of behavior. I guess its true some of us learn more slowly than others.

    P.S.

    Its only truly interesting to you if I could be construed as wrong?....hmmm

    interesting...

    *sigh*

    First, saying you are making a statement that is factually incorrect on it's face is in no way expressing my view of humanity's ingenuity or potential. It's a comment on your statement as it was written.

    And yes, I do place limits on what people can do. We can't make square circles, for example, and I have no problem saying we never will be able to do so.

    I do not know what advances in technology are to come, and it maybe that some day we can compute a complete solution to chess. However, that is not theoretically possible today.

    As for what's truly interesting to me -- it has nothing to do with if you are wrong or not, it is if a claim has meaning beyond an individual or not. "I can imagine a world where there are square circles" is perhaps an engaging tale about your inner imagination, but it's not particularly interesting beyond that. By contrast, "I can show you how to draw a square circle" is a fascinating claim if true because it will change the way I view the world.

    If you know of a theoretical basis for saying a full solution set for chess can be computed, then share it. Publish it. Heck, I'll help you get it written up and put out there because it will change the world.

    But, I'm fairly confident that you have no such theory.

    What I do find fascinating is how personally you seem take someone pointing out your opinion was not factually based. Take a pill dude, we're all wrong about lots of things, lots of times. It's great to want to stand up for your ideas, but when there is no factual basis by which to base them it just makes you look silly.

    You admitted to the truth in the first few statements you made. You place limits on what humanity(including me) can do. The truth is, you don't. You'd like to think you are some sort of qualified expert to determine what we can and can't do or who is right or wrong about their ideas.

    You opinion doesn't rule us or dictate to us whether or not our ideas are wrong. Thanks for clarifying for us what you really think. I appreciate that.

    What will be the impact of this argument being solved?        

    because i wanna see it!


Back to Top

Post your reply: