The Unsolved Mysteries In Chess

There are things we may never understand-It is just best to surrender and move on                                  - Anonymous 

There are some things that we never will know in our lifetimes, for example, we will never know if alien life exists, or what the future holds. But that doesn't mean nobody will know these impossible answers, because nobody knows what the future holds.

In the 1950s, technology was in the early stages of being slowly, but efficiently developed by people who believed that technology was the way the world was going, and of course, they were right, and they could prove they were right after they had created the first stored-program computer in the 1950s, a computer which had a memory so it could perform tasks. 

Manchester Mark 1- the first memory-storing computer

But in the 1900s, creating this masterfully constructed memory storing computer was just.... unthinkable. The only reason they would think something like this is impossible, is because for their time is was. But almost 100 years later, we are in the exact same prediciment. We don't know how fast the computers will evolve. That brings us to our first mystery, 

Will Chess Be Solved?

If chess ever happens to be solved, it is the computers who find the key. Take Stockfish for example, the #1 chess engine. Over 12 years Stockfish has increased his rating by approximately 700 points. In another 12 years Stockfish will gain around another 700 points, crossing the 4000 barrier. But even in 36 years, with 5000 rating, will it be able to play every game with 100% accuracy?

In 2012 computers have "solved" every endgame with 7 pieces on the board. But 10 years later 8 pieces is still an unsolved mystery. So how would we ever accomplish 36 pieces if we can not even do 8? it may take hundreds of years for a perfect engine to be developed.

if computers solve chess, the next step would be for a human to solve chess. How would a human ever even begin to start this time consuming mega task? We would start by building off of what we built; Studying the computers perfect games. This is a strategy that has been proven successful by over more than 100 years of testing. take some of these people for example.

GM lev Psakhis memorized all of Fischer's games and later became USSR champion.

GM Josif Dorfman memorized 2000 Zurich games, and later became USSR champion.

GM Aleksander Alekhine memorized no games in particular, but he became World Champion.

And GM Magnus Carlsen memorized 10,000 games, no wonder he is that great.

for a human, memorizing even 1000 perfect games would add a great advantage over somebody who doesn't memorize. But even memorizing 1000 games would take a great toll on the human mind, but not on a computer mind. Computers may solve chess within hundreds of years, but a human mind will never be able to memorize an infinite amount of positions.

As ultimately AIs will be perfected, and will dictate chess, but with this will bestow upon us a gift; a gift of errorless perfection, a gift of an incredible mass of creativity. The engines might kill chess, and bring it to the same fate as checkers., but they might bring chess into a new light instead. Only time will tell.

Who Was The Best?

This question is rather vague. To explain it a little better, who was the best at chess when they were in their prime? This question will probably never have an answer, because to get the answer you would have had to go back in time to see this, not the future like the previous question. 

But even if the answer is just about close to impossible to get, we will review the top three contenders and see the ups and downs of each one.

• Magnus Carlsen. Magnus is certainly the best player in our time, by currently holding the world championship title, and by achieving the highest classical rating of all time. At a young age he loved dynamic games, with a lot of sacrificed to be made. As he started to face higher opponents, his playing style, is often perceived as dull and boring (London). Nevertheless, he never fails to deliver a tactical blow and is one of the most flexible players out there.

• Garry Kasparov. Like Magnus, Garry became a Grandmaster at 13 years old. But unlike Magnus, his playing style is the complete opposite, and Kasparov is described as a "brilliant tactician and attacker" who would punish his opponents by launching aggressively dynamic attacks, and will not hold off if he sees a worthy sacrifice. If Magnus and Kasparov were to face off, it would be like fire and ice dueling.
• Bobby Fischer. Became a Grandmaster at 15, but none of that detracts from his legacy. His games would always start with e4 ("best by test"). His would never doubt his opening skills, and would specialize in his openings he knew better than anybody else. He was the determined type of personality, one who fought not for a draw, but for a win. He is famous for winning games known to be drawn, because of his fiery determination and technical play. Pandolfini on Fischer, "a king of artful positioning. His opponents would see where he was going but were powerless to stop him."

Chess.com wanted to find an answer, so they conducted a survey to see which player people thought was best. Results? 

Magnus in clear lead, with Fischer and Kasparov close behind.

The reverse minority in this situation is Magnus. Perhaps he was the reverse minority because he is the best player we have witnessed in our time. If this survey was conducted in the prime of Fischer or Kasparov, chances are one of them would be majority. They have concocted another survey to see whether they thought magnus was the best, but this time in a yes or no format.

Following up on previous survey

Magnus is obviously the most liked, but being popular has little to do in chess. say Magnus was pulled back into Fischer's time, and they grew up in the same era. Fischer would win when they were both in their peak. Why? because Magnus is getting an extreme amount of help now, but when Fischer took down the soviet union, he had no computers to help him study, and he had got a coach later on, meaning also if Fischer had access to all the technology available, he would have been a greater player.

But if Fischer had access to all of this, his style might be exactly like Carlsen's; Boring and lame. , I think that Fischer would beat Magnus in his prime because Magnus knows how to hold a draw, but Fischer knows how to win.

Now what if Kasparov and Fischer were to play? I believe this would be a fell fought draw. They would both be playing a theory filled opening, with sacrifice filled middlegames, and a robot-like endgames.

Kasparov V Magnus? Magnus is automatically dubbed best because of his rating, but it is more complicated than that, because Kasparov was a coach to Carlsen. But they have played each over. Twice. The best game in 960.

I think that Magnus is not the best yet, but with another 10 years he will get the title of the GOAT.

Who Made Chess And When?

If you ask somebody "what is something thousands of years old and still alive?", most people will say a lame type of ancient tree. But the answer "chess", also works. But the problem with something this old is the beginnings have been lost in the sand of time!

What we do know is that chess was invented around India, by a man named Sissa Ben Dahi. The first ever recording in chess was 600 AD.

First recording of chess, or Chaturaji at this time. 

To fill in this big question, legends have been told to wonder the minds of people. The most famous one is about a king and a villager. 

The powerful king was named Shahram. His kingdom was at war though, and he wanted to pratice real war strategies without risking the lives of any soldiers. The king offered a handsome reward for anybody who would make something to practice war.

So, a man named Sissa Ben Dahi went and invented a game to represent the kingdom consisting of the king himself, his queen, rooks, bishops, knights, and pawns, all of which had a great role, with the king as a weak but important dictator. The king enjoyed this game, and he understood this was like real life. He had ordered everybody in his kingdom to play chess, and to get a feel of the war strategies.

The king had offered the man a great reward of silver and gold, but the man did not want it, and by this the king got very offended. For the reward the man wanted one grain of wheat on the first square of the board two on the second and to keep doubling it until the chessboard was full.

The unknowing king served the mans orders, but that amount of wheat didn't exist! The king understood that the wise man had given him a second lesson. Just like the pawns in chess, you should never underestimate the weak things in life!

So do you think chess will be solved?

Who do you think is the GOAT?

Do you have any other twists to the legend of how chess was made?