8171 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I contemplate this idea quite often. Some people act as if they would quit playing, if it was finally solved. I would guess checkers is already solved, but I am sure people still play. I think it could be possible for someone to memorize all of the nuances of checkers, but I don't think even the greatest memory I have ever seen for memorizing chess moves, could completely take advantage of it.
Even armed with the knowledge that, if one plays with one of today's popular openings or defenses, that would possibly become shown by engines, to produce a sure fire result for either side, should all of the best moves be made, we as humans will still be confronted with the daunting task of memorizing the best lines, and hoping if our opponent forces us into a different line, that it won't garner a different result.
Does anyone else see it differently? I could possibly see the Magnus Carlsens of the world, perhaps taking advantage of one opening for white, but you can't always use the same defense. I just don't see anyone ever being anywhere close to, being able to memorize enough, that they would be unbeatable.
If I am not way off base here with my idea, why is it then, people would want to quit playing Chess? It makes no sense to me. Besides, if we all suddenly have access to NZT and can remember it all. I am sure with our newly increased intellect we will create something new and chess-like to challenge each other and ourselves.
Chess will never be solved. The numbers clearly demonstrate that. I can't see a point in contemplating the impossible.
If chess is solved (all positions cataloged) it doesn't seem like 960 would hold out for more than... a month after that?
But I see your point and agree nameno1had. Especially amateurs who live by dubious trappy openings, that we have the theory today to refute, people still don't set about memorizing a few hundred variations to become experts in it.
And as you said, how much more would be required to stonewall a mainline opening especially at the highest level.
I'd add another point that for most players chess might as well be solved. In present day 2012 when we want an authoritative answer about a position we go to the oracle (houdini, stockfish et al.)
Once a club-mate has this funny owens/sicilian hybrid that I was having trouble with. My cpu told me I was winning by a pawn! So I sat down with some paper, wrote out the refutation of all lines, and memorized it. The next week I beat that thing as if he were facing a GM, and he hasn't played it since (although I've forgotten the moves by now heh).
what if math was solved? i mean, what if the hardest equation we can think of was put to rest by some genius? would the rest of the matematicians necessarily know how to do it? nope.
if chess as we know it is ever 'solved', only 0.000001% of players will realize how to capitlize on it and us patzers will continue to love the game, anyhow. :)
Opening theory can never be memorised for the 960 version, too many opening positions available. That means for practical purposes the 960 version cannot be solved.
I was just guessing. Obviously many 960 middlegame (and nearly all endgame) positions would fall into the classic chess solved category. I wonder how many unique positions 960 adds relative to the total number classic chess contains.
Or in other words, if a computer calculates and catalogs classic chess's (I'll guess 10^50) legal game positions, does 960 really add a noticeable amount? I'd tend to think that a few extra thousand (million?) wouldn't make much difference.
CHESS IS A MIND GAME AND THE HUMAN MIND IS LIMITRD I PLAY AGAINST A COMPUTER AND A COMPUTER IS PROGRAMED TO REMEMBER ONE MILLION MOVES THE HUMAN WIND WILL NEVER HAVE THAT CAPACITY
Oh did you mean not practical for a human to memorize? I think classic chess's solution is the same. I'm sure there are many moves that maintain a draw... it's not as if there will be only a few "good" moves in the solution.
Yeah, but once chess is solved, lets say e4, e5 is a win for White, and e5 is the best response to e4, than people will play something else. Chess will become a game of memorization, not to find the best move. People will play an inferior move, hoping that the opponent would concentrate on the best move, and not know how to play against the inferior move.
Fischer already solved chess thats why he retired
if i only had the option of playing against a computer, i would quit playing chess... the game would have zero appeal to me..
what makes chess interesting to me are the interesting people i've played with, without them there is nothing to share, if fabulous combinations and chess wizardry was the domain of computers then i couldn't care less
computers and crackers are the side of chess that could make me quit
Are you able to decode the personality merely from the game? I don't normally end up in stimulating conversation during games. I usually only play online too. I would try to keep it short in live chess.
I do really enjoy good conversation in OTB games... I would try to this in online games too but, I have had many people tell me they don't like to talk to me because, I think too much... I used to think that I thought too much, but I rethought it and realized some people enjoy being mental midgets...
I agree. If there are 960 possible possible starting positions as compared to standard's one, then there are 960 times the amount of possible openings, atleast.
I think you think people think you think alot because you think people think you think too much
Solving chess will (likely) only prove that it's a draw.
And didn't we alreadly know that? So what's the problem here?
This makes sense, because transpositions would be totally unthinkable.
(are you kidding?)
Are you sure thats why? I think you should think about it and make sure you have expounded on it properly.
I dont know how to expound sorry
i totally gave up live chess, ending up boring my ass off
Me too, for that reason and because, I can't handle the thought I was cheated, while being stressed so much ,and not realistically having a chance to atleast give the engine a game.
If you think about it enough, the right answer will come to you.
no time im going to play laser chess which is imposible to solve
King's Gambit a good opening?
by blasterdragon 3 minutes ago
Slav defence help
by GreenCastleBlock 3 minutes ago
Why lose points for stalemates?
by reflectivist 8 minutes ago
Chuck Norris vs Magnus Carlsen
by ToughNinja 13 minutes ago
Who has the advantage?
by Randomemory 15 minutes ago
What happened to the fun???
by AlCzervik 17 minutes ago
5/25/2013 - Pieces Out of Play
by CaptJaneway 21 minutes ago
Shredder12UCI: left thinking for 9 hours after 1.e4 gave a sequence. Interested?
by Stigmatisert 27 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by Ja3030 30 minutes ago
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
by aland420 33 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com