What will be the impact of chess being solved?

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

Well said.

"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.

Correct, TheGrobe.

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.

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...

you've got a complex dude.

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...

*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.

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?

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.

Exactly how did I take your statement out of context?

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

Haha.

What will be the impact of this argument being solved?        

because i wanna see it!

I am certainly glad opinions vary.

You took my statement and related it to how things are presently and how they could be from your perspective, while I meant them for how they could possibly be in the future, from my perspect. You weren't relating them necessarily to the whole idea I proposed. You took one idea from the subject and then sought to take away any plausibility it could have, in and of itself, just to either make me look bad and to perhaps further prove you don't think chess will ever be solved.

I am not obligated, while brain storming to please all of your sensibilities, with all of my ideas that I think could become reality in the future.If the original intent of my statement was to first prove the necessary computer technology would be developed on a specific premise, that could be used for a multitude of things, including perhaps solving something as extensive as all of the possible chess lines, then I could see you going to such great lengths to give me grief over this subject.

Clearly what I was doing and trying to specifically prove the computer technology will be reality and thus making the task of solving chess a given, are two different things. If you carefully read my previous posts, I had been saying that even if it was solved, it won't really change the games for humans, because we can't memorize enough of it, or calculate all of the subtleties necessary, to try to take advantage of. I wasn't even trying to prove chess would be solved in the first place. I most certainly wasn't making my statement to carry on a debate with you, about how computer technology is, was or could be. Yet this has been you entire focal point. You never seemed to acknowledge the purpose of this thread. You only sought to discredit it starting with what you mistakenly thought was its basis. When in fact, creating it, wasn't to prove chess would or could be solved.

Do you disagree that the statement I made about computers was a used as a hypothetical stepping stone(very subjective and was meant as a needed vehicle, to even be able to entertain the idea that was proposed about chess being solved?  Would it be fair to say that when one theorizes upon something hypothetical, that they aren't saying that it is fact definite, its just an idea that could be possible? So if you treat me as if I said it is was definitely so, when I didn't, that would be a false accusation and you took my statement out of context.