If chess were solveable, computers would have done it by now.
if the earth was round, the oceans would have run off the sides by now.
i mean, how else can the water stay there? it's gotta be flat.
Looks flat to me.
A good time to stop playing is when you solve it, not when a computer does.
A good time to stop playing is when you solve it, not when a computer does.
But it'd be an easy way to make a few million euros if you kept at it . . .
A good time to stop playing is when you solve it, not when a computer does.
says the wood (shover)
Computers can beat me now. That's why I choose to play biological forms of intelligence.
computers dont know anything that people dont know.
computers dont know anything that people dont know.
That may be true, but they don't make tactical errors.
I wouldn't stop playing.
I always thought solving chess or playing the perfect game, meant the computer could see all the possible paths to the end of the game and picked the move that was the most certain to win, or the move that was on the shortest path to victory.
That's just the way I've thought of it. Does it make sense?
There's a fallacy in the OP's question.
What does "solve chess" mean, as done by a computer, relative to how humans play chess?
Topalov had access to a supercomputer, and the latest Rybka software. He still played fxe4 in game 12, and explored the Catalan a strange number of times, clearly hoping for Anand to enter into a line that Anand avoided.
The fact that a chess solution can be stored in a supercomputer, doesn't mean that it is accessible to chess players. A pocket calculator can compute pi to a number of decimals that no human can memorize - yet mankind has done pretty good calculations with 3.14
And while computers may have solved checkers, with their relatively simple rules and complexity compared to chess, even a solution to chess stored in computer memory will have little bearing on how humans play the game of chess.
There's one exception, and that is if one of the humans playing has access to computer assistance during the playing, and the other has not. But you don't need to "solve" chess for that to be an unfair advantage, it already is.
Play through the games from a round of the U.S. Championship, and you'll see how far we are from "solving" chess in the practical sense - nothing to lose sleep over. 
I agree - there seems to be a misconception about what "solving" chess means. If it's supposed to mean that black makes the best possible moves until the game is drawn or until he loses, it is conceivable that this can lead to a single (or indeed, more than one) game that lasts for 100+ moves. But this is only relevant if both players are computers that always make the perfect moves. Thus, memorizing this game is completely useless as a weapon when playing against human opponents (or weaker computer opponents), who will make a different move at some point (unless, ironically, they want to lose by playing perfectly). What you'll effectively have achieved is just one game amidst billions upon billions, wherein black has no hope of winning.
Then again, we have no hope of winning against the best of computer opponents anyway. As such, it doesn't even matter if chess is "solved" - even if we could certify that this were the case (which is by no means a certainty).
I am certainly not going to be impressed by it (even if i think it already happened). However I am still impressed by the art ot Capablanka, Lasker, Alekhin and so on, in time where there wasn't even a pocket calculators.
Note: By "solved" I meant that a computer determines that with best play the
game is a draw(or a win for white, since a win for black is not likely).
Checkers has been "solved" now and many believe chess will be solved and
it will be a draw with best play.
if it gets solved,I'll quit and start playing Go.and if that gets solved too...well then,I just might go kill myself
Computers already play chess at a level that exceeds the capabilities of human play and no-one's quit over that. Why would actually solving the game be any different?
It's just not relevant to human versus-human-play.
Here is an interesting philosophical question I often ask myself while sitting
on the beach or a lonely mountaintop.
If chess is solved by a computer will you quit playing? Why or why not?
Simply infeasible, barring Earth-shattering new technology. It's a bit like considering a car reaching 0.9 of the speed of light. More specifically, approximately 10^50 positions to deal with, and the network of legal moves between them, i.e. creating the tablebase of all (legal) positions with 32 or less pieces on the board.
The fact that the number of legal games is well over the square of the number of legal positions means other approaches are not going to be easier.
I (and others, I am sure) had the idea that quantum computers might be the only possible viable approach, but I am assured that there are enormous barriers to creating computers with enough quantum bits to deal with the problem.
That's why it's a hypothetical question.
Incidentally, the "earth-shattering new technology" to which you refer may well be quantum computing.
People still play tic-tac-toe don't they ?
Oh, of course!! I hate to sound immodest, but people are always wanting my autograph because I'm a tic-tac-toe GRAND MASTER!
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
"How about a nice game of chess"
"lets play thermonuclear war"
Seems to me the computer finally concluded the only winning strategy at thermonuclear war was not to play at all. Perhaps, it will reach the same conclusion about chess.