AlphaZero: Will People Treat Chess the Way they Treat Tic-Tac-Toe?


In the machine vs machine games where both are almost equal in chess skill then the draws result would be frequent as in human vs human games.

Chess would be as it is now for future time.The frequency of won depend on the skill balance between both players.

Considering incapable human to beat machine indicate still there is room for human to develop if there is no limit for human brain.


We still have sports of strength, speed, and endurance.  Engines solved all those things over a hundred years ago.  I'm pretty sure chess is just fine.


It doesn't really matter if chess is "solved" by computers. The main point is that as a human, we could not possibly memorize the "answers" to chess; forcing us to think for ourselves.


The two can't be compared because chess has infinitely more move options, while tic-tac-toe only has 9! possible moves for the entire game.

Also if ya'll are interested in the alphazero games versus stockfish, check out my analysis of the games here:





More people preferring to see computers play might happen, but only until it gets boring.


Post #1 is irrational and contradictory. If chess is solved anyone can draw with GM or Engines like Tic-Tac-Toe. If chess is not game of deep thoughts, SF would make draw with AZ very easily. Chess is a ornamental Skill , if anyone think playing sports will feed the world, that is terrible. Only fools disagree with me. 


cars move faster than humans and there ate still running races. Only problem is that if cheating OTB comes so un-detectable that it is not possible to stop. SHort of that it does not make any difference to popularity of chess


For humans matters chess is already "solved" as no human can beat the top engines. But we still study chess, play chess and watch human chess games. 
Even if one day chess in 100% solved, with optimal lines for all the 10^150 deviations from the main optimal line, no one will memorise all this solution lines, and we will still be having fun playing chess.


Coffee house chess will live forever. I'm afraid pro chess will suffer. Chess patrons sponsoring GM events will dwindle. Weekend amateur events however will prosper. CHess knowledge learned from engine games and analysis will go to waste if not applied otb. I'm one of them itching to slug with other amateur players.


Yet AlphaZero is totally unable to play SuperMario.



DeepMind have achieved some impressive results with AIs playing Atari video games.

But for you, here is an AI of a similar ilk playing SuperMario.


No drafts has been solved but people treat it with respect.

The answer to the question that is the title of this thread is “no”.

The general scientific consensus seems to be that chess is theorically solvable but practically not. We are not even sure if making a computer able to reach this goal is physically possible.  Anyway, if this will ever happen in a far, remote future, i am afraid that the interest in chess will probably decrease.


"Physically possible" might not have been excluded, but "physically possible using any form of conventional computing technology we adequately understand (even given huge resources and development of the technology to its limits)" can be accurately described as excluded.

The reason is that even if every operation is very cheap, the number of operations is stupendously large.


No. I literally solved Tic-Tac-Toe on own as a child. The most modern and powerful supercomputers in the world, aided by some of the smartest programmers, with inputs of the strongest players, still hasn’t even come close to solving chess.


Even if computers ever finally solve chess the game will still remain very, very far out of the reach of the human brain doing so.