Does it really matter if Chess is solved?

@21

"I think it would help your case if you were able to convince at least 1 person."
++ I am no debater, communicator, or wordsmith,
but I might be the only scientist on that thread.

"either everyone in the world is crazy or you're crazy"
++ Like when Galileo was forced to swear the Earth does not revolve around the Sun...

Yes, those cases are so rare in history that we can afford to remember one so long ago as Galileo. A very good example of the exception proving the rule.

This is not a case of opposing epistemologies. The Church derives knowledge from tradition, the people arguing against you derive knowledge from the same modern sources as you do.

There are several people with advanced degrees arguing against you.

Scientist... one annoying aspect is how you seem to have worked backwards. You started with a 15 year old quote about solving chess, and massaged your calculations until they fit Sveshnikov's baseless statement, and you did so seemingly without realizing that modern computers (super or otherwise) are 50 to 100 times faster than they were in 2017.

This is nothing but a meaningless argument. A word-by-word struggle. Don't understand the use of this thread now.

"The bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

 - Ratatouille 2007

@23

"Yes, those cases are so rare in history that we can afford to remember one so long ago as Galileo. A very good example of the exception proving the rule."
++ There are many many more examples. Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, evolution, antimatter... were all heavily disputed at first.

"There are several people with advanced degrees arguing against you."
++ We do not know about degrees. I have seen no valid counterargument so far.
Mostly mockery, trolling, spamming, insults, red herrings.
I am the only one who presents facts & figures and back it up with references.
A lot is emotional, like 'I do not want Chess to be solved, so it cannot be done.'
Or: 'I do not understand the math, so it must be wrong.'

"You started with a 15 year old quote about solving chess, and massaged your calculations until they fit Sveshnikov's baseless statement"
++ I must admit that I found Sveshnikov's claim surprising when I first read it.
That is when I started calculating and I found it correct.
Besides Sveshnikov was not only grandmaster and 65+ World Champion, but he also held a MSc and almost a PhD in engineering and he taught aspiring masters how to analyse chess with computers. He also showed his analytical prowess in his book on his B33 Sveshnikov variation.

"modern computers (super or otherwise) are 50 to 100 times faster than they were in 2017."
++ I do not know how many nodes/s the top engine in 2017 could calculate.
Sveshnikov did not indicate how many computers he planned to employ.
He may also have planned a much stronger pruning.
I can only say that according to my calculations what Sveshnikov said is true today.

Anyway, that is besides this thread.
The 10^44 legal positions is a proven fact and thus chess can never lead to more than those.
It is also obvious that weakly solving requires far less positions than strongly solving.
I presented my arguments why 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving chess.
If somebody has valid arguments why it should be 10^18 or 10^16 I am all ear.

There are so many games and lines that it most likely won't impact humans.

There are forums other than chess.com. Some for math and some for computer chess. I wonder how many positions they would come up with.

Then it isn't worth your time to continue to post here, at least not on this topic.

Wont matter for human players

What's the issue for critics here? The thread's about "chess" not Galileo or Einstein's theorem for god's sake.

It seems kinda irksome on how the discussion deviates from chess to science and the universe. Geez!

Sure, that's a good point.

I've seen topics like this one for years, so it's boring to me, but I see why other people would find it annoying when things go off topic so... sorry about going off topic I guess... I blame @tygxc !

@30

"The thread's about chess"
++ I say: if one player has access to a book of 10,000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides, then that player has a substantial advantage.

chess

You should visit the Paradox boards. We start out discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and within half a page we're arguing about the method the Ottoman Empire used to use back in 1830 to select counsellors for the Divine Porte.

Argument is the exact reason to why I don't visit most sites often. Many discussions start with a pleasant topic, only to find people talking about something else later. 

I guess beauty in humans is that they aren't perfect

It makes me think of all that IA is doing these days, between Dall-E and Chat GPT among others

You think humans are so easily replaceable ?

Everything after your first phrase is opinion and unsupported.

anti-chess (or giveaway chess as it is called here) is solved (as a forced win for white) but there is still a world championship in it, and with online chess sites supporting it, it has gained a lot more popularity.

So I doubt being a solved game would be a problem.

Chess is appreciated for its complexity and depth. The idea of a complete solution to the game takes away the mystery and challenge that many players find enjoyable.