Is Chess on the verge of being solved?

Fortunately, I don't remember what it was.

In the distant future, the computer capacity may exist to reduce all possible chess positions to a Nalimov table base analogue.

But our brains will never be able to retain all that data for OTB play.

Thank the Lord!  I could kiss you for posting this link!    I believed the article and was really depressed yesterday because I thought my favorite game of all time was on the verge of being ruined! 

What a relief!

Indeed, there has never been cause to worry:

my nephew dont play good chess but he plays playstation .there is so called emulator which is like a database for chess and can research for his moves just by cellphone.ive tried playing with my nephew but i won butmy winning didnt reflect much of it because he was not accomodated of something he forget to avail of the emulator .am not familiar with cellphone as it is very little for me to read and to punch so i hate cellphone but with database already existing i dont wonder why they find best moves if they know of it.,but i dont think they will have a respect for winning in their own way because it is another form of cheating.

Using an emulator is cheating in tournament play.  In any case how can anyone progress his own chess game unless they use their own mellon?  Losing is one of the best way to progress, not computers guidance and a fake high rating. 

yes i have plenty of losses to a lower rated players than me,i have been playing chess according to my wits and knowledge and experience from continous playing .it doesnt matter anymore to me  as i am already old,i just  dont understand why they should have high respect for themselves  inspite of consultation to database and still happy about winning.

yes i have plenty of losses to a lower rated players than me,i have been playing chess according to my wits and knowledge and experience from continous playing .it doesnt matter anymore to me  as i am already old,i just  dont understand why they should have high respect for themselves  inspite of consultation to database and still happy about winning.

ive been reading about psychology books for every other day,i found out lion stands for self interest, the greediest part of nature which we we call the lions share in idioms where everything falls for the lions mind.

i am reading psychology books every other day,people are like lions in constant search for prey .no matter what it is for self preservation or lions share in idioms what is obtainable is obtainable,lions are the most expess  formin animals same also with nature of mankind., form of the greediest form of animals and also to mankind.which to ethics is the end does not justify the means and vice versa.

If by "theoretically possible position" you mean position that reachable from the starting formation, then yes. This is different than every possible allotment of pieces on the board. e.g. it's theoretically possible (in one sense) to have pawns on both players' back rows, and (in another sense) it is also theoretically impossible. e.g. it's theoretically possible to have a board with a white pawn in every square in one sense, but in another sense it's not.

I certainly hope chess is on the verge of being solved (it's starting to get a bit annoying).

Hopefully, humanity will never solve chess. If chess does become "solved," then no one will ever want to sit down to play the greatest game ever invented. Both players would know which color (White or Black) is theoretically supposed to win so there would be no point to ever playing. We would all still play chess occasionally, but they're would never be any formal competitions, exhibitions, or clubs.

A perfect example of this phenomenon is what has happened to Tic-Tac-Toe. Most of us have had experience with a classmate writing in a notebook in some boring class/study hall or with chalk out on a playground. But once we learned the few rules to never lose a game (and often draw games), Tic-Tac-Toe became "solved" because its complexity was so low. Now, there is never any formal competition or professional association to sponsor Tic-Tac-Toe!

Let us hope that never happens to Chess!

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,