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.
Nobody seems to have payed attention to this comment...so I am reposting it.
uh yeah...theres no question how much you need to memorize : zero. use a database.
Yes, and thus, the game becomes boring.
objectively i think that even among strong gms there does exist gaping holes in their repetoire that simply arent exposed because those openings..although fine...are not fashionable.
I'm with Fiveofswords here. GMs memorize an astounding amount of material, but they are still human consequently there are limits. Not only to how much they can memorize but how much they can keep fresh enough to use.
So long as everyone is playing the latest stuff that everyone is studying, everyone looks good.
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 !!
No, these must be 6-man tablebases. The only publicly avialable 7-man tablebases I'm aware of (the Lomonossov tablebases, they can only be queried online) occupy some 120 TByte. It has been estimated that every additional piece will enlarge the tablebases by a factor of 50.
objectively i think that even among strong gms there does exist gaping holes in their repetoire that simply arent exposed because those openings..although fine...are not fashionable.
I'm with Fiveofswords here. GMs memorize an astounding amount of material, but they are still human consequently there are limits. Not only to how much they can memorize but how much they can keep fresh enough to use.
So long as everyone is playing the latest stuff that everyone is studying, everyone looks good.
Gaping holes? They are GMs. Even if they are surprised by this, they are likekly to reply with good moves.
This is off the topic we started with. I will repost it.
I think the gamechanger will be when science manages to integrate computers directly with our brains.
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?
And we are talking correspondence chess...s
I think the gamechanger will be when science manages to integrate computers directly with our brains.
For regular chess yes, but not for correspondence.
Even if they are surprised by this, they are likekly to reply with good moves.
Robert: But your topic issue is memorization. Not whether GMs can improvise well when they don't remember.
Not at all! My topic is about when will each chess position be analyzed, or at least when will all chess games become draws? (Something of the sort is already happening in Correspondence, where all theory is available. Theoretical novelties are becoming less and less frequent these days)
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.
Nobody seems to have payed attention to this comment...so I am reposting it.
Can't speak to other correspondence organizations, such as ICCF, but chess.com does not allow tablebases. And frankly, I know I'm not interested in playing on a site/org where they are allowed.
Not at all! My topic is about when will each chess position be analyzed, or at least when will all chess games become draws? (Something of the sort is already happening in Correspondence, where all theory is available. Theoretical novelties are becoming less and less frequent these days)
You mean all opening theory? Or do you have some really massive database? Almost every game I've played eventually goes out of the databases I have. The number of playable middlegames is huge and I don't think a database exists that covers that many games (10 million is a drop in the bucket).
That and the fact that even if it is in a database, unless you know how the game evaluates, you won't know if you should stay with the line or deviate because the players missed something in the game.
As an old champion used to say, you don't need to know many moves ahead, just one, the best. :)
well you just exposed a serious error with your reasoning right there. a gm actually doesnt need to memorize everything. no matter what happens theyvarw good enough to get a reasonable position regardless. what exactly is the benefit of memorizing then? maybe sometimes you can get a little extra and maybe not. but the draw death of chess will happen sooner from strength of play than from memorizing stuff. and no humans are nowhere near that level and probably never will be. not even computers are near that level.
They memorize so they can make the opening moves faster. And there is no need to memorize in Correspondence Chess.
Not at all! My topic is about when will each chess position be analyzed, or at least when will all chess games become draws? (Something of the sort is already happening in Correspondence, where all theory is available. Theoretical novelties are becoming less and less frequent these days)
You mean all opening theory? Or do you have some really massive database? Almost every game I've played eventually goes out of the databases I have. The number of playable middlegames is huge and I don't think a database exists that covers that many games (10 million is a drop in the bucket).
That and the fact that even if it is in a database, unless you know how the game evaluates, you won't know if you should stay with the line or deviate because the players missed something in the game.
Chessbase Mega Database 2015--6.6Million games.
Chessbase Mega Database 2015--6.6Million games.
Yeah, that isn't really all that many games when you think of the number of possible (even playable) middle games in chess.
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.
It's still an AWESOME piece of chess history, and VERY relevant to your thread's topic.
Not at all! My topic is about when will each chess position be analyzed, or at least when will all chess games become draws? (Something of the sort is already happening in Correspondence, where all theory is available. Theoretical novelties are becoming less and less frequent these days)
First we need to find a way to make the universe last longer (and ourselves).
Then we need to dedicate as high a percentage of the universe as possible to solving the problem.
Then every human who will ever play chess has to commit all of these positions to memory (and have perfect recall).
So... a while! 
Chess is an EXPTIME-complete problem with immense game complexities. I suggest you take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity
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.
Nobody seems to have payed attention to this comment...so I am reposting it.
Tablebases are for at the most 7 total pieces on the board.
A good correspondence player knows that opening databases have many errors or bad moves.