Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Will technology ruin the game of chess?


  • 3 months ago · Quote · #241

    TheGrobe

    No, an exabyte database is nowhere near large enough, too small by many orders of magnitude.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #242

    Robert0905

    Will Technology ruin the game of chess?


    An interesting, much debated question. Personally, I do not really see, how it will ruin the game of chess.

    In post #245, Shackoo made a good point: Engines will eventually analyze all chess positions. That is true, but however, I don't expect it to be humanlly possible to memorize the best move in all such positions.

    Of course, generalizations about what moves are usually best to play in which type of position will help humans a lot, but many of these generalizations already exist, and there are countless exceptions.

    In terms of cheating, computers help cheaters by a very large factor. But by scanning the area for electronics and other ways of detection (both for Over-the-Board games and Online Games), cheating is kept to a limit.

    In any case, if chess is ruined by chess engines (unlikely, in my opinion), humans can always rely on Fischer Random chess or other formats such as Bughouse for at least a couple of centuries.

    Thus, my answer to this question is: No.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #243

    Ed_Seedhouse

    Robert0905 wrote:
    In post #245, Shackoo made a good point: Engines will eventually analyze all chess positions. That is true.

    Well no, it isn't.  You can only say this if you just don't understand how vastly BIG the game of chess is.  I know lots of people just don't get big numbers but all you need is a spreadsheet and some multiplication and division to show that this is not going to happen for a few billion years, if ever.

    And even if it could be done the storage requirements to store all the possible positions and their solutions would require more matter than is in the visible universe.

    Chess is BIG.  Really, really BIG.  Of course Go is even bigger, vastly bigger than chess.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #244

    Robert0905

    Ed_Seedhouse wrote:
    Robert0905 wrote:
    In post #245, Shackoo made a good point: Engines will eventually analyze all chess positions. That is true.

    Well no, it isn't.  You can only say this if you just don't understand how vastly BIG the game of chess is.  I know lots of people just don't get big numbers but all you need is a spreadsheet and some multiplication and division to show that this is not going to happen for a few billion years, if ever.

    And even if it could be done the storage requirements to store all the possible positions and their solutions would require more matter than is in the visible universe.

    Chess is BIG.  Really, really BIG.  Of course Go is even bigger, vastly bigger than chess.

    Computers have already analyzed all six-piece positions. I said that it will Eventually happen, which means it will happen at some moment in time.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #245

    Murgen

    Taikyoku Shogi anyone? Laughing

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #246

    Ed_Seedhouse

    Robert0905 wrote:

    Computers have already analyzed all six-piece positions. I said that it will Eventually happen, which means it will happen at some moment in time.

    You just don't have any clue about big numbers, do you?  Six pieces isn't even a start on analysing the whole game.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #247

    PilateBlue

    Ed_Seedhouse wrote:
    Robert0905 wrote:

    Computers have already analyzed all six-piece positions. I said that it will Eventually happen, which means it will happen at some moment in time.

    You just don't have any clue about big numbers, do you?  Six pieces isn't even a start on analysing the whole game.

    It's hardly even a start on analyzing all seven-piece positions. Exponents are tough to comprehend. 

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #248

    leiph18

    Imagine 2^n

    Saying we got from 2^0 to 2^6 doesn't mean we're half way to 2^12.

    6 man table base is not even 1% of 1% of 1% etc.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #249

    petrosianpupil

    Technology helps chess.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #250

    fburton

    A lesson on exponential growth should be compulsory in all school curricula.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #251

    kiwi

    If it does, it's not in our life time.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #252

    petrosianpupil

    Chess is a draw, even in the days of capablanca this was realised. People win because humans cannot calculate all the tactics or understand all the ideas of chess. Don't see how computers will change this. They may be able to one day prove the existence of the draw. A forklift truck might be designed that can lift a mountain, don't think it will stop weightlifting competitions.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #253

    varelse1

    Technology HAS ruined the game of chess. Every since they started using those infernal clocks, chess has gone to the dogs.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #254

    Pulpofeira

    He, he!

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #255

    legionforthewin

    varelse1 wrote:

    Technology HAS ruined the game of chess. Every since they started using those infernal clocks, chess has gone to the dogs.

    Ever since they made those"pawns", the game has gone mad

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #256

    legionforthewin

    petrosianpupil wrote:

    Chess is a draw, even in the days of capablanca this was realised. People win because humans cannot calculate all the tactics or understand all the ideas of chess. Don't see how computers will change this. They may be able to one day prove the existence of the draw. A forklift truck might be designed that can lift a mountain, don't think it will stop weightlifting competitions.

    Apperently, Computers Suggest Chess is NOT a draw and hence whoever Gos first has an advantage. Yes i know that computers are not perfect but doesn't going first give a "nudge' of delovopment advantage? White has a edge[according to me]

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #257

    halfgreek1963

    It already has. Have to endure endless nitwits commenting on games based on what their search engine tells them because they can't think for themselves. And the most hilarious part is that many comment this way as if they're gms and are critical of players 1000 x stronger.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #258

    AlCzervik

    And that's why the game will be just fine for some time. Those nitwits you speak of will play in some otb games, and will only have the assistance of their minds.

    Basically, the computer age has helped those that play straight, and hindered those that use it as a crutch.


Back to Top

Post your reply: