GreedyPawnEater wrote:
it cant be memorized. we can add new pieces - bunnies, sheep and elephants.
First non-troll comment from you?
Chess will all be memorized due to computers?
Sort:
First of all, the best engines are playing at a level 400 points higher than the nearest human. Humans cannot play accurately enough through the course of a long game to survive against any top engine. If tournaments were started on the 5th or 6th move randomly, so as to avoid specific pair up home preparation that would circumvent your home preparation memorization. Besides that, there's always Fischer random chess. Imagine starting a tournament from random starting positions taken from 3 or 4 Fischer random starting set ups. The reason for a lot of draws is that the players can't play accurately enough to convert an advantage into a victory. If you play through enough annotated games you will get an idea how many games are drawn and even lost from better positions. This is because the complexity of these positions is mind boggling.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#44
But that means that in Correspondence chess, all games are going to be draws.
Did we really need another one of these ridiculous threads?
Jun 1, 2015
0
#49
bb_gum234 wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
But that means that in Correspondence chess, all games are going to be draws.
It means all R vs Q endgames are going to be wins, yes.
The OP is about memorization though.
Thoeretically, if chess ends up being solved and best play always leads to draws, then any organization/site that allows tablebase usage would end up in draws for all games that aren't totally lost out of the opening (assuming anyone would play such a line).
In such a hypothetical, there would have to be some kind of detection method (probably based on the number of errors and TB matching maybe) for any sites that disallow tablebase use. Otherwise, barring errors in the tablebases, there would be no reason to play anything but OTB.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#50
Warbringer33 wrote:
Did we really need another one of these ridiculous threads?
Yes? 
Martin_Stahl wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
But that means that in Correspondence chess, all games are going to be draws.
It means all R vs Q endgames are going to be wins, yes.
The OP is about memorization though.
Thoeretically, if chess ends up being solved and best play always leads to draws, then any organization/site that allows tablebase usage would end up in draws for all games that aren't totally lost out of the opening (assuming anyone would play such a line).
In such a hypothetical, there would have to be some kind of detection method (probably based on the number of errors and TB matching maybe) for any sites that disallow tablebase use. Otherwise, barring errors in the tablebases, there would be no reason to play anything but OTB.
...Or on a site with quality cheat detection methods.
Warbringer33 wrote:
Martin_Stahl wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Robert0905 wrote:
But that means that in Correspondence chess, all games are going to be draws.
It means all R vs Q endgames are going to be wins, yes.
The OP is about memorization though.
Thoeretically, if chess ends up being solved and best play always leads to draws, then any organization/site that allows tablebase usage would end up in draws for all games that aren't totally lost out of the opening (assuming anyone would play such a line).
In such a hypothetical, there would have to be some kind of detection method (probably based on the number of errors and TB matching maybe) for any sites that disallow tablebase use. Otherwise, barring errors in the tablebases, there would be no reason to play anything but OTB.
...Or on a site with quality cheat detection methods.
What happened to your lichess thread? What happened to freedom of speech??
Jun 1, 2015
0
#53
Robert0905 wrote:
(((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?)))
This link has what Bobby Fischer had to say about memorization of Chess:
Jun 1, 2015
0
#54
Yes, I admit I was inspecific in my first post. My question is, in correspondence chess, what will happen? Even now, most games end in draws.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#55
Robert0905 wrote:
Yes, I admit I was inspecific in my first post. My question is, in correspondence chess, what will happen? Even now, most games end in draws.
Really? You talking about something like ICCF where engine use and tablebases are allowed (or not specfically disallowed)?
I would guess in non-assisted correspondence, the incidence of draws isn't much different than OTB for similar strength levels.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#56
I am not talking about Engines. I am talking about Opening Theory and Endgame Tablebases.
Jun 1, 2015
0
#57
Robert0905 wrote:
I am not talking about Engines. I am talking about Opening Theory and Endgame Tablebases.
You can't use tablebases here or for something like USCF correspondence (as far as I know on the latter). Other sites/orgs have different rules.
Sure, computers can improve and memorise chess, but guess what? People never change...
Memorize all the lines of he relatively simple R vs Q endgame for example.
That's just two pieces.
Once you can play it perfectly get back to us... i.e. you'll never get back to us lol.
A strong player could of course, but it's a big time investment, and not only is it just two pieces (queen vs rook) but it's well known and mapped out. Raw computer lines, with more pieces, even if the numbers weren't astronomical, would be impossible.
In correspondence chess, I wouldn't have to memorize anything. I could just look at the table bases.