Regarding checkers being solved by computers - and tic tac toe also -
has such 'solving' hurt these games?
I imagine its helped much more than hurt.
Are these games relevant? By 'logical premise' no. But as it pertains to the issues of whether solving helps or hurts - they have 'conversational relevance'.
I tried to google worldwide Checkers - checkers ratings and so on - but its not an easy google.
Googling whether tic tac toe continues to be popular among kids -
haven't tried that yet.
Point: why would 'solving' by computer hurt any game?
The time has come and gone when it became clear that some computers could outplay chess grandmasters. It continues to be so - since then. The top computers are better than the top human players.
Computer solving and computer assistances of various kinds are helping many games. Making them more popular.
Computers working out poker odds and simulating billions of poker hands hasn't hurt poker.
Online poker has hurt some in-person poker rooms? Definitely.
But Covid has probably hurt them worse.
Besides - people who learn poker online - can and do show up to play poker in person.
That happens with chess too.
It'll happen more after Covid is over.
Another reason to show up in person is that there's a lot of Cheating online.
But 'computer solving' seems to be helping with gameplaying.
Not hurting.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Tic Tac Toe is not a game. You've been lied to. A quick Google search will tell you that whoever goes first and has first move, the same square always wins. It cannot be defended. If you have ever gone first, and lost, in tic tac toe, it is your own fault. If you pick the right square first, nothing the opponent does can win. First turn person should ALWAYS win 100%. If they pick that square. No supercomputer needed.
As for "computer Poker", no. They can be programmed to give playable hands. For example, 3 players, it can be programmed to give 2 people a pair in the dealing. 3rd and 6th cards are 4's. The whole deck can be programmed. If you played Zynga Poker on Facebook, or Xbox Live, you will know that very rarely is there not a decent hand given to someone. When you play with REAL cards, you can get many more boring hands.
But THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in Poker is humans can bluff. If someone puts $100 in every time they have a good hand (and you call it each time and lose thinking they are bluffing) and that person is not smart, they will keep going all in on good hands. Then you know to hold if your hands good, or fold if you have junk. But you learn to "read" that type of player like a book. A master poker player can mix it up and keep you guessing. Slow raising $7 at a time (instead of $100 all in) when they are dealt incredible hands. So you think they just have 2 aces or something and you have three 4's, so you take the bait. Then you are out $30 by the end of the hand... Obviously it's more complicated than that. Also you can show excitement like a newbie and go all in when you have a good hand. But, later on when the stakes are high, ONE TIME you don't have a good hand, you get all excited and go all in, and the other players fold, meanwhile you had a garbage hand, not even two 2's because they trusted you and were burned thinking you were bluffing a few times in the last 20 hands... Etc... Computer poker is NOTHING compared in person poker. Plus the computer does all the betting easy, you don't need to know chips or deal the cards or anything. Computer poker is good for learning rules. Learning that 4 aces doesn't always win, learning that you truly can't tell by bets what a person has, but until you play in person, the whole psychological game comes into play. And people that can have 4 aces, A full House, or a 2, 4, 9, 10, King unsuited and their expression won't change or their mood.
"The concept of three days per move - well some like it.
Is there fear of making a mistake? Having three days won't prevent mistakes. "
Please tell me you are joking though... In a 30 second game, you can't analyze every piece on the board and where you (or they) might move like you can in a long match. Mistakes are more common because, even the best players cannot analyze every move in 30 second blitz or 1 minute blitz.
If time taken did NOT change the optional moves in a game, then Magnus and -any opponent under the sun- would finish their games in 30 seconds.
What do you think they are doing when they look at the board for 10-30 minutes before they touch a piece and move?
If that extra time did NOT affect the plan (looking ahead, looking at ALL your opponents possible moves) then, as I said, would championships would be over in 6 minutes (12 30 second games, or however many they play).
You could also consider that after taking a lot of time on a move -
that a grandmaster - after getting his opponent's reply move -
even if that reply move was expected and pre-analyzed by him -
might then take a lot more time on his next move.
This is a big problem for people who want to 'crunch' chess.com puzzles before they move anything at all. Always crunch that is.
If they've 'seen everything' - then how can they justify taking more time after getting the next reply move ? 
'please tell me you are joking' -
I never claimed that people 'see everything' in a 30 second game. Nor 'in 30 seconds'.
There's something called 'attacking your own idea'. It wastes a lot of time in chat rooms and I often ignore it after pointing out that its happened.
Why would people do that?
Apparently so that there's something to disagree with ... no disagreement -no discussion. Even though that does Not logically follow and also is not the case.
Semantics over the word 'game' and 'lied to' are also 'not going to get it'. There's another forum - arguing over whether chess is a sport or not. A lot of time being invested there over the semantics of one word.
Those who don't like math might do better over there maybe.
Or be doing better.
You told me literally “More time doesn’t help you catch mistakes.”
Which is completely false. No argument to it what-so-ever.
Pro or beginner, the time helps you see what you, and more importantly, what your opponent can do, to better chose an action.
To say otherwise, as was literally stated, is completely false.
Go back and read it yourself. You literally said “Extra time will not prevent mistakes.”
Then you reply with “I never said you could see everything in 30 seconds.”
Well, then, what WERE you referring to in bullet or blitz that doesn’t exist in longer timed matches?
Literally the only difference between a 30 second time limit and a game hours long IS the TIME! Lol.
Different board? Nope.
Different chess pieces? Nope.
Oh, yeah, that mad rush in the last few seconds as players make 16 moves… Maybe that is the difference!
No time to plan or absorb everything…
And sorry, but that can make even the best players mess up…
Which is what I said.
Hmmm…
Nah. I’ll pass. Hard pass on that one…
#849
Of course more time means less errors.
We even have data on that from AlphaZero.
At 1 s / move: 88.2% draw rate means 1 error per 668 positions.
At 1 min / move: 97.9% draw rate means 1 error per 3810 positions.
Extrapolating:
At 1 h / move: 99.6% draw rate means 1 error per 21,000 positions.
At 60 h / move: 99.93% draw rate means 1 error per 120,000 positions.
At 60 h / move with 1 takeback / move: 1 error per 10^10 positions.
At 60 h / move with 2 takebacks / move: 1 error per 10^15 positions.
At 60 h / move with 3 takebacks / move: 1 error per 10^20 positions.
Hence 3 takebacks / move should suffice to prove chess at 10^19 relevant positions.
Tic Tac Toe is not a game. You've been lied to. A quick Google search will tell you that whoever goes first and has first move, the same square always wins. It cannot be defended. If you have ever gone first, and lost, in tic tac toe, it is your own fault. If you pick the right square first, nothing the opponent does can win. First turn person should ALWAYS win 100%. If they pick that square. No supercomputer needed.
Ummm...no. You are all over the map here. I changed your accurate statements to blue, and incorrect statements to red.
Tic tac toe cannot be lost if you move first and know how to play correctly, but you cannot win against a player that knows how to play correctly either. Tic tac toe is a draw with best play. I'm surprised this post even made it 6 hours without being refuted 
.
#851
That is correct
Tic Tac Toe, Nine Men's Morris, Checkers and presumably chess are draw.
Connect Four and Antichess are wins for whoever plays first.
As for "computer Poker", no. They can be programmed to give playable hands. For example, 3 players, it can be programmed to give 2 people a pair in the dealing. 3rd and 6th cards are 4's. The whole deck can be programmed. If you played Zynga Poker on Facebook, or Xbox Live, you will know that very rarely is there not a decent hand given to someone. When you play with REAL cards, you can get many more boring hands.
Almost exactly 50% (49.9%, to be more precise) of hands are better than a high card, so at least 2 out of 3 hands are this good 50% of the time.
P(2 or 3 out of 3 better than high card) = 0.5 * 0.5 * (1 - 0.5) * 3 + 0.5^3 ) = 0.5
I suggest you record your hands over 100 hands or so and see that it is indeed consistent with random dealing.
"You told me literally “More time doesn’t help you catch mistakes.”
Did not say that.
But by trying to insist that I did - you can disagree with your own idea.
Its very neat - and nobody can stop you doing so except the original poster.
I doubt even the moderators would stop you doing that.
I doubt you'd be able to compete with 'the other guy' though.
But maybe you will be able to 'eclipse' him. With a fast foreign car ...
Strange thread...most people seem to have no idea what "solving" a game means.
Solving a game does not mean being dominant over all other humans...otherwise chess was "solved" by Morphy, even though we can find many suboptimal moves in his play now.
Solving also doesn't mean calculating every permutation.
What it means is a mathematically best strategy has been shown -- either an unstoppable strategy that always wins for one player, or a strategy that forces a draw (where an unstoppable can be proved to not exist).
At this time, the game of chess has not been solved, but there is no reason why it is impossible, or intractable.
I think Go will be solved before chess, and when that happens we can suspect chess is coming soon. Go has many more permutations than chess, so is sometimes described as a more complex game, but I think, given only one kind of "piece" and "move" it looks a better candidate for finding an unbeatable strategy.
Deepblue was Champion in 1997, while AlphaGo Zero made it to beat the World Champion only after 2015 (It had won WC Lee Sedol and Highest-Rated-at-the-time Ke Jie by 2017), which points out a possibility for Go being later solved than Chess.
It could also be that the larger Go board with 361 places to drop pieces increases its complexity by exponents. Seen some arbitrary mechanical calculation on chess, Shogi, Go, checkers, etc. and Go rates about 50+% higher than the others in terms of logarithmic complexity.
#857
That is right Go is more complex than chess.
Chess is not nearly as complex as people used to think.
Even 10^37 is a massive overestimation of the number of legal and sensible chess positions.
Nevertheless chess is still much more complex than checkers.
#859
Well Mr. 2300, do you think the following randomly sampled positions without excess promotions play a role in solving chess? Those are in the 10^37 count.
#859
Well Mr. 2300, do you think the following randomly sampled positions without excess promotions play a role in solving chess? Those are in the 10^37 count.
I understand that any proclamations by me on whether they can be ignored are as inappropriate as any by you. I feel this is not a result of my rating, but independent of it (more related to having two maths degrees. "Solving" is a mathematical activity, also found in chess problems and tablebases but not in play in general).
Are you manic-depressive?
Probably not reportable to the moderators - as nobody is named.
'somebody' has admitted to being 'perturbed'. But he keeps showing up here. Perhaps that's an objective of 'somebody'. Although its not the objective of the forum. Nothing in the opening post to the effect 'get perturbed here'.
But as always - it can be posted around.
And just now - we got new posters.
Who also posted around the provocations.
A good thing. Progress.