Chess Soon Dead?

Chess will continue, for the same reason people don't play football against tanks, or have foot races against automobiles, or compete in the long jump against airplanes.  The point is, when machines exceed our capabilities, we merely stop competing against them. You're right to ask "what's the point" for man-vs-machine at that time.

OK, soon computers will be able to beat any human.  So what?  We'll just return to human vs human play.  Maybe competition will be more dependent than ever on opening analysis, but I'm sure we can alter the game's rules to shake that up.

Hmmm? I don't really get what's ironic about it, but hey, I'm not a computer, I can't calculate the answer.

From a mathematical game theory point of view, checkers is a simpler game than chess. There are only 5x10²⁰ positions (5 with 20 zeros after it) in checkers, whereas chess has at least 10⁴⁰ positions. Thus, we have a better chance of completely solving checkers than chess. However, that does not mean that checkers is easier (or harder) to play than chess.

that is from the chessbase article that I was quoting before.

Now Checkers has been solved and yet they still have tourneys and world championships. They dont seem to care it is solved and keep going on.  Chess in my mind has passed its worst test in computers beating the best players, yet chess has more players then it ever has. Money is better then it ever has been. I think computers has helped chess instead of hurt it.

  Normal population doesnt care about computers beating he best. ITs just a news story then it goes away.

Even if chess gets "solved" and people stop playing it, there is Chess960.

... Or pinochle. (Single deck; four handed.)

1) chess wont be solved in our lifetime.

2) it will be annoying when some major opening like the ruy lopez is worked out to a draw as best play. Will GM's have to draw lots for openings?

3) add two more rows and more knights and we get another century of unsolved.

I solved chess but still play it.

Well chess is a mental thing that can be memorized by humans, I am not saying humans can memorize every position in chess like the computer may, but they can memorize enough to abolish the entertainment value of the game.. I think, anyway. As for people playing football against tanks and competing against automobiles in foot races, I can only say that from what I have observed, it would be very difficult for tanks to throw footballs to each other and position themselves on the field to catch the enemy players, and it would also be extremely difficult for automobiles to fit in a foot race competition seeing as they have no feet. ^^)

Complexity is crucial here. There may well be many billions of perfect games.  Humans couldn't memorise them all, we have to be guided by principles, learning and judgement based on experience in evaluating the best move in a given position.  Computers will not change that.  Essentially chess is a human passtime, somehow it has come to represent an aspect of inteligence, we have lost a little pride now that coputers can out play us eaisily.  I think we can get over that.  In a way it is  a testament to us that it has taken so long and so much computing power to beat us.  We could vary the rules, add new pieces and once again we would be in the lead.  However essentially games like chess are ideal for number crunching machines, in the long run any such game that gained the kind of status chess has would be targeted by software developers.  So why create a new game?  We have a splendid one, rich in history, simple enough to appreciate, compelling enough to draw millions of players, yet complex enough to defy any kind of analysis that we could memorise, let alone understand.

It could be argued that computers can't play chess at all.  That might sound at first ridiculous, they beat us!  But think about it, they cannot get excited, can't feel pressure, can't show a child how to play, can't read a chess book.  They are without emotion, their inteligence is that of a circuit, no more alive than a calculator.  A chess engine could do no more than flip circuits on and off billions of times a second in an order predetermined by it's programmers... That is not how to play good chess, if a human mind imitated that technique he/she would be a very weak player.

The game will remain complex enough, it is a lack of understanding of that that might lead some to believe that a single perfect game is possible, that a list of fifty or so moves is all that would be needed to memorise - not possible, if it was to be that the best reply to the best move was 1 e4 e4, and you knew all the moves to follow, play 1 e4 d4 and then there is another fifty or so moves to memorise... think about it, it's just not humanly possible, so for us the contest will remain valid.

I suppose you are right NotAGM. Once again I think I was just looking at everything wrong, I think I now see that chess is greatly helped by the introduction of computer technology, chess may be more boring later on but I'm not sure... Just knowing that the answer to chess is no longer a mystery might compel some to quit.. But in any case I am sure virtual reality or something of that sort will dominate all other games, hmm. ^^

As to you uhohspaghettio.. What I wrote for AlanL was supposed to be a joke, I am sorry if my inquisition has made you upset. Please, forgive me. 

Car races haven't stopped Horse racing from continuing, or for that matter people running with just their feet.

But I am sure we can all agree that car racing (i.e. NASCAR) is much more watched than the latter two eh ^^

i think this argument lacks perspective ...

remember that chess itself has evolved over centuries. the rules have changed and developed to improve the game. chess.com has live chess and chess960. there is also a version of 3D chess (which i don't think is very popular).

the point is that chess will continue to change. it's not static, it's organic.

human vs human will always be a challenge in chess, of course. a computer isn't very helpful when you're playing in a park with a board and pieces in front of you ...

besides, people don't always want computers to help them. i think we're inherently independent. while we may use computers to help find faster solutions, we will always want to test our mental abilities.

a computer telling us what the perfect game looks like, or how to "solve" chess, won't end the game, it will only create more discussion and excitement ...

if you only think about america, perhaps. obviously the rest of the world has no interest in nascar. anyway, what about rodeo and the kentucky derby?

from an australian perspective, the melbourne cup (horse racing) is equally popular with bathurst (motor racing) ... actually, the melbourne cup might be more popular!

and you can't say that the olympic 100m sprint isn't popular. it's the flagship olympic event. in fact, the olympics is very much a spectacle of human achievement.

humans have always had a thirst for raw physical skill. while computers can improve motor racing, we still rely on the skills of the drivers. the same for running and chess, we will always be attracted to the purity of human ability; whether it's usain bolt or magnus carlsen.

Well chess has been alive for long time. Why it should die? : )

I always compare it to american football...sure, an armored tank could take the ball and plow up field, leaving the best football team unable to stop it.  But, that doesn't mean a thing to the future of american football.  Chess is about humans...it is an art.  Here is a quote that I got from another chess.com member's post today...I apologize for not remembering his name..but his quote is great:

In the words of David Bronstein:

“The act of playing chess is an act of creative cooperation. Even though you're trying to defeat your opponent, you're still creating something in partnership with him, a brand new game. Whether that creation is ultimately beautiful or ugly makes no difference, the aesthetics don't matter - you're still teaming up to make a game that's never been played before.”

Sure, and sure again. But remember the computer will have already played your game in its memory. So really no one is making any  new mystic discovery for chess because the game will already be solved, every line booked..

I suppose car racing isn't the only popular type of racing out there.. But I am sure in good time a form of vehicle racing will be ^^), controlled by humans of course though, it would be boring to watch computer powered vehicles race each other just as (I am sure everyone would agree) watching computers play chess is terribly boring

From time to time chess *is* solved. The person who finds the ultimate solution to the game is, however, quickly permanently silenced by a secret society of chess grandmasters. Or do you really think Alekhine died of natural causes?

Well, right now, Deep Rybka 3 can beat anyone on the planet. What's your point?  What's the difference between a computer telling you the 100% perfect move or it telling you a better move than any human would play?

Even if it could give you the 100% best move, what does that have to do with your next game against Grandpatzer Steven?  Computers have actually helped Chess quite a bit.  Now I can watch a world class chess game live and actually have some understanding of the lines not played.  Everyone can now analyse a game and get what they want from it.  Better analysis won't make people stop playing.   It'll just make them play better.  People said similar things when Deep Blue beat Kasparov.  But what has happened since then?  People like Magnus Carlsen happened.  Kids who have learned the game almost exclusively on computers and have learned to play at an extremely high level relatively quickly because of it.

Have you ever watched those Namilov endgames?  The endgames that have been 100% solved?  If you look at some of the more complex ones, you will see moves that make no sense to any human.  No human would ever play chess like that.  If you want to, you can input any position in th tablebase and get the 100% perfect move.  Does that stop people from playing endgames?  Do they resign as soon as they reach a technically lost 6-man endgame that has already been solved? No.  They play on until thier human brain tells them there is no hope for a win or draw.

Chess is more than the synthesis of peice movement.  It is a logical, spatial framework in which humans compete against each other.  Solved or not, Chess is a competition.  Humans still have to play against each other to determine the winner.