Is Chess Finally Dead?

Sort:
odisea777

is track and field dead because machines can outperform humans??? 

the OP makes no sense whatsoever. 

TheGreatOogieBoogie
GreedyPawnEater wrote:

Yes, chess has been long dead. Since Deep Blue destroyed Kasparov. Nowadays it's a recreation activity. Otherwise, I big fat waste of time as Kasparov himself has said.

 

Deep Blue did not destroy Kasparov!  He did win the match but only by one game, and its win could legitimately be considered an upset due to Kasparov's far superior endgame technique, strategic understanding, and his experience from previous games, especially his matches against Karpov. 

 

This Russian national hero, who was Botvinnik's favorite student, who took the chess world by storm as a clearly obvious prodigy, who won strong adult tournaments as a child, whose calculation abilities and strategic planning are legendary, who won matches against the great Anatoly Karpov, made Nigel Short, who earned a title shot by beating out other world class GMs, look foolish, and Kasparov in turn himself lost to an oversized chess calculator.  IBM was afraid, which was why they refused a rematch with Kasparov.  They knew the result was genuinely an upset.

 

odisea777

No. the point is we can build  machines to do things better than we can do them. That doesn't mean we don't continue living and functioning. Any computer can crush me in chess but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy sitting down and playing a human being. 

There are still chess clubs all over the world; a computer could beat any club player. But people still love to play.

So: No, chess is not dead. 

john2054

Please let me repeat my earlier point, which is that computers cannot 'think' they can only 'calculate'. Ergo as long as there are people playing, chess will not be dead.

TChosen1
Arjun316694 wrote:

Yup! Now lets hold a funeral!

we held it last month.  We were wondering why there was an empty seat.

IpswichMatt

At some stage we will be able to create self-aware computers that think like we do. Then we will be able to build a computer that actually understands chess in the same way that we do, but which also has access to huge memory and computational ability. Such a machine will one day beat the likes of Houdini version 1782.8, or  Stockfish 789 .3, or whatever. And be able to explain how it does it.

Of course, we might not bother to build suich a machine, one it becomes obvious that we can. Or the conventional computers may have solved chess by then.

odisea777

Chess is about as alive as it's ever been. Computers change nothing. I can sit down and play vs players better/worse than me, and enjoy the game. The same is true of millions of others. Computers have nothing to do with that. Also, there are as many GMs playing as ever, memorization has not changed anything. 

Spiritbro77

Chess will never die as long as there are those that enjoy playing it.

Warbringer33
MorraMeister wrote:

this whole thread is bullshit. mathematicians have long estimated there are more possible chess positions than atoms in the universe. and so what if top GM's memorize lines to the first 10, 15 or 20 moves? okay, well there are still many moves left to be played in a typical game. computers have accelerated chess knowledge and made it possible for youngsters to become masters in far shorter time. but ruin the game??? hardly.

 

The average person can't even conceive of how complicated and "unsolvable" the game of Chess really is. Some of these same people think Poker is as complex as Chess. Basically, more power to us for identifying what the best game ever made was and is. 

KingpinChess
Somebodysson wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
Osiris27 wrote:

Chess is not dead, but games with an hour or more need to stop getting venues.  Chess is not the most exilerating exibition sport at its most exciting.  The new standard needs to be 30 mins.

There are plenty of entertainment options for people with no attention span.  In my opinion 30 minutes for a professional game is absurd.

maybe for the people who want 30 minute professional chess they could add a mixed martial arts component where after every set of one move each the players could pummel and maim each other, and then when the clock flag signalled they could get back to their one move each. I imagine some people would like that more.

IF, however, chess is in fact dead, even thirty minutes is too long for death. I propose those who find chess dead find, as wafflemaster proposes, other entertainment options.

 

null

rotd33

this didn't age well

TacticianR4

I think there's nothing bad with having AI's such as Houdini and Rybka because it doesn't matter that even the World Champion (Magnus Carlsen) is no match for them just now. We humans have the trait of improving what we already have, so if we use engines to improve our playing it's okay. Moreover, it'll come the time when we show advancements that we didn't think of years ago. At least, that's how technology works I guess...

martinez2011

k

bong711

Professional Chess will die soon. But Amateur Chess will flourish!

DrSpudnik

With brain implants, we will likely soon see a non-human world champion.

Rodgy

When you notice this forum was posted In 2013 . _ .

1d3_1-0

Lol

 

Account_Suspended

super-chicken!

harrisisawesome

i still like chess...?

Tianshuhe