Will the whole game of chess be just memorized due to the help of computers? Will GM's and even lesser players prepare up to move 40 or 50? If so, how soon will this happen?
Never.
Not many people have the ability to memorize the number of lines at depth that are good enough for draws/equality.
No because computers have to solve the game first, which won't happen for years. Someday it may happen but not in our lifetimes
No because computers have to solve the game first, which won't happen for years. Someday it may happen but not in our lifetimes
Are you sure? We are at 6-piece endgame tablebases. Each day, GMs are analyzing the opening further and further. Already, many lines go up to move 30. There is now only a small part of the middlegame, albeit usually not interesting, that is left.
Will the whole game of chess be just memorized due to the help of computers? Will GM's and even lesser players prepare up to move 40 or 50? If so, how soon will this happen?
Never.
Not many people have the ability to memorize the number of lines at depth that are good enough for draws/equality.
GMs can...
openings change all the time, new lines arrise, and sidelines are always played
Are middlegame tablebases really needed? In most grandmaster games, the game is already drawn before the middlegame, and even if it reaches a middlegame, that middlegame is dull.
Will the whole game of chess be just memorized due to the help of computers? Will GM's and even lesser players prepare up to move 40 or 50? If so, how soon will this happen?
Never.
Not many people have the ability to memorize the number of lines at depth that are good enough for draws/equality.
GMs can...
But you also said "less players." I would guess that the number of GMs that have the ability to memorize every non-losing line in chess to be pretty close to nil (assuming they are all ever found).
The 6 men tablebases take 1.2 Tera-bytes of storage. From what I'm finding the 7 men tablebases (Lomonosov) run around 100 TB. That is a lot to remember.
This all assumes that computers don't solve chess in such a way where there are only a few optimal lines. Even then (if that ends up being the case) there will probably be a lot of lines that may be sub-optimal but still playable that will make it so very few people will be able to memorize all of them and they eventually will be completely on their own, playing lines they haven't memorized.
Will the whole game of chess be just memorized due to the help of computers? Will GM's and even lesser players prepare up to move 40 or 50? If so, how soon will this happen?
Never.
Not many people have the ability to memorize the number of lines at depth that are good enough for draws/equality.
GMs can...
But you also said "less players." I would guess that the number of GMs that have the ability to memorize every non-losing line in chess to be pretty close to nil (assuming they are all ever found).
The 6 men tablebases take 1.2 Tera-bytes of storage. From what I'm finding the 7 men tablebases (Lomonosov) run around 100 TB. That is a lot to remember.
This all assumes that computers don't solve chess in such a way where there are only a few optimal lines. Even then (if that ends up being the case) there will probably be a lot of lines that may be sub-optimal but still playable that will make it so very few people will be able to memorize all of them and they eventually will be completely on their own, playing lines they haven't memorized.
Not EVERY line. Only the lines that are most common. And what about Correspondence chess?
How many SENSIBLE varitions of chess games are there? Many less.
Chess won't be solved(32 men tablebase) before year 3000.
Not EVERY line. Only the lines that are most common. And what about Correspondence chess?
No, they will have to memorize every line that is even close to equality and maybe some that will be shown as sub-par. Because most people don't have the memory capacity to know all the lines without making a mistake, people will play anything that isn't clearly losing.
And many/most of those lines will likely have many variations that are as good or only slightly inferior to the main line, increasing the number of lines needing to be memorized. And each of those variations are likely to have the same thing.
Oh yeah, that's a serious question. I can see you put some thought into it.
There is a 7 man tablebase for sale that has 12 dvds !! You would fill up your entire hard-drive with just chess. ! How many dvds for 10 or 12 men endgames? It would have to be sold on an external hard drive of 5 Tera-Bytes !!
Think bigger, much bigger. The 7-man tablebase I saw was listed at 100 TB.
You are very pessimistic. So am I (in general) but not about chess. I think you are way overestimating the ease with which tablebases and opening analysis can be combined. Besides, we have no idea at all what the best openings are in the first place.
This is why Capablanca added two new pieces to the game,and 16 more squares, haha (he thought chess was starting to become too easy for masters)
I would say some, specially amongst super-gm's already do this. I'm pretty sure they confirm their lines with an engine so that they only play positions and variants that engine choose up to a great depth.
I recall on an interview on Anand, about he meeting Bobby Fischer, and Fischer got upset with him because he told him something amongst the lines "the computer says that position is disavantageous for me" after fischer suggested some moves on a certain game anand played, and well, this was like 10 years ago now.
So pretty much, i think it's probably rampart amongst gm's nowadays to check their favorite openings and prepare some variants to certain matches that were analysed with the help of engines.
You can't possibly know alot of openings with depth, but certainly you can know some systems you can transpose into commonly and develop from there, that's why everyone picks up a restrict ammount of openings to dedicate themselves.
OK, you've won me over. But what about Correspondence Chess? You are allowed to use tablebases and opening databases there. There is no question about how much you have to memorize.
This is why Capablanca added two new pieces to the game,and 16 more squares, haha (he thought chess was starting to become too easy for masters)
That was before Nimzowitsch and hypermodisnm.
Will the whole game of chess be just memorized due to the help of computers? Will GM's and even lesser players prepare up to move 40 or 50? If so, how soon will this happen?