Opening theory is already "booked", correct? When computers do solve chess I am sure human beings will most likely not be able to perfectly perform followups to computer play. But say computers completely rearrange the opening moves that should typically be played, then only those moves would be played or a loss would result for the differentiator, I am right, yes? That all being so I am quite sure the entertainment value of the game would would be crumbled due to the constant repeats in games, thus people would discontinue to be interested in it, for it will have reached perfection, and perhaps even stop playing it altogether. I once read a quote, I can't remember who from though.. But it stated that "Perfection is the worst thing man can achieve, because there is no room for learning"? It went something like that, but what is stated is true and false at the same time for different things..
Chess Soon Dead?
"Opening theory is already "booked", correct?" What does that sentence mean? Do you mean you can find opening theories in a book?
"But say computers completely rearrange the opening moves that should typically be played, then only those moves would be played or a loss would result for the differentiator, I am right, yes?" Another bizarre sentence. Are you saying computers will change some of the variations being used in opening theory? And then people will follow the computers lines because they think any other line is wrong? Since I keep looking at a picture of Jesus when I see your name, I'm assuming this is an argument for "faith". Trust the computer. Am I right? Is your argument something like, 'Wow, computers are amazing to me, therefore we must assume that chess, a game with variations that the greatest mathematicians on Earth can't give a comprehensible equation that would envelope it's variety, can be "solved", without even knowing what "solved" means, by computers...trust in me'? Am I close to understanding your "argument"?
Since "perfection" is left undefined, and since I'm speaking with Jesus, I assume the last part of what you stated is some mystical land of indifference, where man having seen his game bettered by what can only be an expression of himself--computers, he wallows in the throes of regret, for having created something that was able to keep track of all the data of something else he created--chess. Hmmm....
But that is just it really yoshtodd, us average players may not care about a computer knowing how to play chess with perfection, but the ones who put everything they have into the game, those who make a living from the game, those world champions! If I could play anyone, greatest player or non greatest player, and just type a position and move into my traveling laptop and and have it reply with the 100% best move to play, isn't the value of good chess playing among humans somewhat tarnished?
Cars can run faster and longer than human beings. Does this mean it is futile for people to compete in track and field? Don't you think that is a stupid conclusion? It takes nothing away from the athlete if they cannot match an animal or machine.
Well with cars its a different matter as the moves from a chess computer can be memorized while physical ability cannot.
• People play because it's fun not because chess is unsolvable.
• Some of the mystique may die but-
• Computers already play better today with no diminished interested, in fact-
• Computer chess has increased players -- more people play today worldwide than at any other time in history.
• Solving chess will not produce one perfect game, but countless perfect variations.
• Even today everyone from club players to GMs deviate from the "best" moves to create complications in order to win so it wouldn't matter anyway.
It seems like the people that make the death of chess arguments are new to chess or are very casual players -- while it may seem bad news for chess to you, most players realize how obvious it is the game will go on.
• Even today everyone from club players to GMs deviate from the "best" moves to create complications in order to win so it wouldn't matter anyway.
Outstanding post. No matter how a computer plays chess, the human mind has what the computer will never have - imagination.
ok checkers has 10 to the 20th power. sorry cant figure out how to make the little 20 in the corner lol. chess is 10 to the 40th. computers have solved checkers. it can see the last 19 moves of a game so it just has to play till it gets to a position that lets it do those 19 moves. The perfect game of checkers is a draw. The best computers can only see the last 6 and some of the 7s of chess. Even after move 40 or so there is no 7 moves left in a perfect game. if it takes 1 nanosecond to solve checkers it would take that same computer 3000 years to solve chess. We dont have any thing to worry about in our or prob many of our kids lifetimes.
chessbase ran a story on this a few years ago when checkers was finally beaten. just look up checkers solved. chessbase will be one of the top links.
But that is just it really yoshtodd, us average players may not care about a computer knowing how to play chess with perfection, but the ones who put everything they have into the game, those who make a living from the game, those world champions! If I could play anyone, greatest player or non greatest player, and just type a position and move into my traveling laptop and and have it reply with the 100% best move to play, isn't the value of good chess playing among humans somewhat tarnished?
Cars can run faster and longer than human beings. Does this mean it is futile for people to compete in track and field? Don't you think that is a stupid conclusion? It takes nothing away from the athlete if they cannot match an animal or machine.
good analogy
Okay the insulting of YouSendMe has gone a little too far even though I might've played a part, and tryst don't bring up religion and insult it! He didn't mean any harm by his post.
If two opponents play chess perfectly, it ends in a draw. If two computers play the perfect moves, the result of perfection is a tie. Why would any human player repeat a computer generated game that ends in a draw? When you sit down to a game of chess, at the very start of the game, you always play to win. A computer can play the perfect moves, but in the end, a draw by two computers isn't as entertaining or flashy as a win by top rated GMs, or even casual players.
Chess will eventually die out, but for something more strategically challenging and intellectually entertaining (Like how 3D tic tac toe has replaced the original, maybe 3D chess will become popular). Computers will never make chess die out, and they most certainly will not frustrate humans. Even now, there are supercomputer chess competitions of 3000+ strength machines, and there are still wins and losses between those computers. It'll be quite awhile before anything happens to our beloved game of chess.
baughman brings up an excellent point. Another thing: computers try to find the best move by numerically analyzing a number of positions using a "position evaluation algorithm" This algorithm is programmed by humans and might, I stress might, be flawed. True computers can play better ELO than humans (Rybka is ~3200 and the best human is barely 2800), and true most serious GMs use engines to aid in analysis, which compounds the problem. But there is no rule that says that some human might be born who looks at chess very differently than the way we all currently evaluate things, and this player might, by using a superior "position evaluation algorithm" in his own brain, be able to beat even the best computers (whose own calculations might contain a subtle, as yet undiscovered flaw). If anything kills chess, it will be an overreliance on computers to calculate the "best" moves, which is really an underreliance on the human immagination.
"my queen pulls an Uzi out of her purse, and slays your entire side."
-- Dogbert, upon loosing a chess game to Dilbert
But say computers completely rearrange the opening moves that should typically be played, then only those moves would be played or a loss would result for the differentiator, I am right, yes?
No, your argument is based on some false assumptions.
Why would "only those moves ... be played?" A refuted opening variation is only bad if your opponent knows the refutation or can figure it out while seated at the board.
Considering the very large number of possibly theoretically inferior lines, that adds a very large number of refutations to memorize. The one theoretical "best" line will not work in most if not all cases as the game deviates from it. Different moves might lead to a loss, but this requires that the winning side either knows the refutation of that specific line, or else just outplays his opponent when "out of book."
Perfect games won't help humans, since humans don't play perfect.
The engines playes perfect enough allready, that doesent seem to bother annybody yet.
Why play?
I can't beat the computer, but I can beat you.
That's why I play. It's still a competition.
Perhaps I was just looking at it wrong, with DJHeilke's proposition I suppose anything can stand for the future of the game we call chess.. In any case, the inquisition that I have truly put forth here on this forum was all meant to be about computers becoming so strong and so powerful that everybody could memorize a few opening moves.. Say a few strong 15 opening move systems, that if someone strays off of those openings they will be crushed. I am sure everyone here knows how strong grandmasters really are, and that if you make even one simple move in the opening wrong it will totally be over for you, well that is just what I am talking about, I figured that if computers are able to be so strong that most every game will be played out in generally the same manner well, well all thats left of chess's entertainment will be abolished. As to some other game replacing it, I think that will most likely happen even if my whole "insult" to chess turns out to be wrong.
tryst, were you very disturbed or very drunk at the time of your last post? If not then I regret to inform you that you seemed somewhat hateful of Jesus Christ ^^
Okay the insulting of YouSendMe has gone a little too far even though I might've played a part, and tryst don't bring up religion and insult it! He didn't mean any harm by his post.
Who the hell are you? If you read my post I didn't insult anyone, but if I had known you were going to step in and be 'forum dad', I probably would have reconsidered.
tryst, were you very disturbed or very drunk at the time of your last post? If not then I regret to inform you that you seemed somewhat hateful of Jesus Christ ^^
I can't really get drunk anymore, so quit making excuses for me. You either can't read, or you are far too sensitive about your Jesus to be able to read after one mentions him.
"Opening theory is already "booked", correct?" What does that sentence mean? Do you mean you can find opening theories in a book?
It means red is a color.
The first post in this thread had at least three easily refuted assumptions to present a question. The fourth post summed all of what transpired prior to it with a single word, and yet here we are on page two.
ok checkers has 10 to the 20th power. sorry cant figure out how to make the little 20 in the corner lol. chess is 10 to the 40th.
Go back and read the ChessBase article again.
10^40 is not what they said about chess. Chess is many orders of magnitude higher in its possibilities. At two million positions per second, it may be that my computer will be able to find the best move for White from the starting position in 10^24 years.
Well, if you think about it, there may be, somewhere out there, the "ultimate" game, where each player makes the best move at every opportunity. You, or any grandmaster can study this game as much as you like, but that doesn't mean you will play the same perfect game as the computer. Pretty soon someone will make a different move than the computer made, and it will be back to the finite intelligence of humanity. So, no, I don't think chess will ever die.
I find it slightly ironic:
"So, no, I don't think chess will ever die." -modernchess-