18348 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
On the plus side, at least we would finally know what the best moves are.
Well, there's a key difference in that it's possible for a human to play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe regardless of how his opponent plays. This would not be the case with chess, so I really doubt human play would be affected. It would be nothing more than an interesting academic occurrence.
The one who solves chess will die!
...a happy person.
I have a question that some of you no doubt can answer or point me in the right direction for further reading. The game of checkers has finally been solved. The result with best play on both sides seems to be a draw. no apparent first move advantage. With chess we have a different situation. Much more complex in its nature than checkers. Some have estimated the total possible moves and painted a bleak picture of ever solving it by present computer algorithms. Some say with quantum computing it may be possible, but still would require more time than the universe has so far existed. I'm in an argument with a friend who is into both computers and chess. I maintain that because of random quantum events, high energy particles from outer space, etc, no matter how powerful the computer, the chance that a transistor will put out a 1 when it should be a 0 is greater than the chance it could ever complete the calculation in the time required under the best of conditions. My friend says error correcting codes would prevent that from being a problem. I maintain that error correcting codes depend on the same 1's and 0's set by susceptible transistors or similar switching devices, that the main algorithm depends on, and therefore are subject to the same problems. Any ideas for further study? Is it possible that chess is unsolvable for the above reasons alone? That is, that random events are more certain, probability wise, sure to ruin a calculation that may have been progressing for thousands of years, than not? Thanks,
You know that world famine and poverty were also solved in theory. It seems that when people play the game, there is no such thing as "solved"
XiangQi (and its Korean equivalent), Shogi, Chess (and its predecessors), and Go (as well as a few others) are pretty much the only traditional board games that are only partially solved, whilst the rest of the simpler games have been submerged by the waters of human and computer intelligence.
Chess, with its ever-rising popularity, would most likely be the first of the list to be solved. Likewise, the other board games, with its lower popularity, would be solved much later because not as much people try.
Plus, all the board games also have a philosophical realm; a realm which no computer (and not many humans) can ever tread no matter how hard they try. That's the only bright side of chess being solved that I can think of.
For more info, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity
Chess is a LONG way from being solved. Countless trillions of times more computing power are needed than the games that have been solved.
...you all miss the point.
...the reason chess 960 was put into play was because "memorization"...which is the meaning of "being solved" has been, by computer has overtaken human memory...
..."solving" is 00the question of "has chess lost it's predictiability ?...yes...that is why is it "solved".
chess 960 has removed ( for a time ) such predictability..
...if you wish to "unsolve chess" then you must give the robot a fourth command...
....you may not play chess.
...isamov would understand ( but i think few of you do not )...
...i am fahrenheit 451...
No. Even if it was, it wouldn't really change the game.
.i am fahrenheit 451...? I read that book, and I am wondering what within the book you are referencing to.
..i am pride and predudice...
I am crime and punishment!
I am stranger than a very strange land.
Radio KCUF in Kinneret, California.
This $3.00 endgame book is better than Fundamental Chess ENdings
by SmyslovFan a few minutes ago
2/8/2016 - Neumann-Hernandez Dresden 1969
by mohandasmenon a few minutes ago
i play chess like mikhail tal what are good openings for me?
by Reb a few minutes ago
by KholmovDM 4 minutes ago
Discussion Forum About Tata Steel 2016
by Reb 6 minutes ago
State of Chess.com Round Two! Post your questions here:
by cjanirudh 9 minutes ago
move analysis number
by jengaias 10 minutes ago
by Rational_Optimist 21 minutes ago
St. Louis Chess Club On YouTube
by ChrisWainscott 24 minutes ago
Main ideas in the Ruy Lopez?
by Nckchrls 28 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!