"Perhaps" can't be the first word in a sentence that's a question, can it?
Is Chess on the verge of being solved?
Sort:
Deranged wrote:
On the first paragraph you said:
" Perhaps Whites first move is actually a burden that will allow him (or her) to make the first mistake and give black the Victory? "
I would just like to point out that a sentence which starts with the word "perhaps" will NEVER have a question mark.
Perhaps you are correct, but are you sure you're correct in all cases?
Lucidish_Lux wrote:
Deranged wrote:
On the first paragraph you said:
" Perhaps Whites first move is actually a burden that will allow him (or her) to make the first mistake and give black the Victory? "
I would just like to point out that a sentence which starts with the word "perhaps" will NEVER have a question mark.
Perhaps you are correct, but are you sure you're correct in all cases?
Perhaps I am correct. Though would you consider this as starting a new sentence?
On topic: chess will be "solved" on the 21st of December, 2012.
And I bet you anything that 1. d4 will NOT be the perfect 1st move for white.
Deranged wrote:
On the first paragraph you said:
" Perhaps Whites first move is actually a burden that will allow him (or her) to make the first mistake and give black the Victory? "
I would just like to point out that a sentence which starts with the word "perhaps" will NEVER have a question mark.
Lol. Sorry you are right. I typed that up in a hurry. I forgot to proofread.
Let's hope this topic will be an example to future members who are foolish enough to post a message on an internet forum without proofreading their work first. As for myself I have the three tier system involving multiple drafts. Thanks goodness people like deranged are around to call attention to these gaffes.
Chess is what, 10^90 times more complex than checkers? So in terms of checkers, no, we're not close. Perhaps if we had 10^20 more computers that were 10^20 times as fast and about a billion billion years to crunch the numbers.
But hey, relatively speaking I guess we're pretty close... in terms of, you know, aeons. 
ummmm......I solved it several months ago but I can't tell anyone. I keep my rating low so as to throw off anyone that might be on to me!
Narniacalls wrote:
Just as the world has started the ITER project to try to build nuclear fusion reactors, I guess FIDE needs to start some sort of foundation for the long term examination of various openings and endgames by computers running non-stop, 365 days a year.
Nuclear fusion will have many practical uses. Solving chess isn't likely to benefit it in a significant way.
I don't think FIDE's finances are managed well as it is (there's really no support for the sub-masters who pay their dues), but at least high-level tournaments promote and benefit chess, not to mention the organisation of youth championships (though the player's parents/or sponsorship by his national federation still bear most of the cost). However, such "research" would be the biggest waste of money to date. Not to mention, with current technology, leaving Rybka running for a year isn't going to produce any revolutionary discoveries.
I still firmly believe that significant advancements will still be produced by GMs, albeit with computer assistance/back up/check, but with human creativity as the most important input.
Capablanca said over 100 years ago that chess would soon be played out and a draw would be the result. Doubtful he would have the same opinion today if he had to play a match with the guys in the top 10 in the world.
Kramnik said 2 years ago that the depth of chess scares him. This opinion seems more in line with the truth. Every time we think chess is about played out, someone like Carlsen comes along and shows us how wrong we all are.......
Computing speed is in a period of exponential growth. Consider the difference between the computers of thirty years ago and today, then imagine the computing power we will possess thirty years from now. This makes me think that the possibility of solving chess may not be as far away as some people are saying.
We should get an infinite number of monkeys on it.
Yes, of course it will be solved, maybe soon or maybe in a million years. And if not by humans soon, then by aliens with much more powerful brains and computers and space-travel tecmologies. Chess is theoretically solvable...only a matter of time.
Yes, as the number of monkeys tends towards infinity, the probability that chess will be solved approaches one.
Because monkeys have a very high reproduction to death ratio capacity, it is therefore only a matter of time before chess is solved. QED
The computer could play this perfect game, but the point is: humans couldn't. Say the best first move is 1.e5 and the best reply is 1...c4. But once you stop playing the perfect moves, your opponent has to rely on his own calcation-back to sqaure one.
Of course, if you played that against that perfect computer, it would realise your move loses, and could win. But a human can't memorise all the variations: just realise how many legal positions are possible by move three/=.
Pretty soon chess will be a memory game like Simon.
Puchiko wrote:
The computer could play this perfect game, but the point is: humans couldn't. Say the best first move is 1.e5 and the best reply is 1...c4. But once you stop playing the perfect moves, your opponent has to rely on his own calcation-back to sqaure one.
Of course, if you played that against that perfect computer, it would realise your move loses, and could win. But a human can't memorise all the variations: just realise how many legal positions are possible by move three/=.
I've been doing it wrong all this time. When my opponent plays 1.e5 I should reply with the Typos defense, 1...c4!
@ NM Ozzie_c_cobblepot : You are right about Blackmar-Diemer Gambit; but then the game would went into a slav defense game. Which means, BDG is not forced to Black.
But again, what opening is forced anyway, Black could always ( I think) ran into a different variation. Right? What do you think?
Hypocrism wrote:
Puchiko wrote:
The computer could play this perfect game, but the point is: humans couldn't. Say the best first move is 1.e5 and the best reply is 1...c4. But once you stop playing the perfect moves, your opponent has to rely on his own calcation-back to sqaure one.
Of course, if you played that against that perfect computer, it would realise your move loses, and could win. But a human can't memorise all the variations: just realise how many legal positions are possible by move three/=.
I've been doing it wrong all this time. When my opponent plays 1.e5 I should reply with the Typos defense, 1...c4!
:D Yes, that would be a true revolution in the game. My apologies :)
On the first paragraph you said:
" Perhaps Whites first move is actually a burden that will allow him (or her) to make the first mistake and give black the Victory? "
I would just like to point out that a sentence which starts with the word "perhaps" will NEVER have a question mark.