I once solved chess using an abacas, t-square, bubble level, micrometer, hammer, ice tongs, miner's lamp, catcher's mask and a rubik's cube; but I lost my notes on how I did it, and I lost my t-square.
Not only will chess not be solved in the foreseeable future, this thread will not be completed in the foreseeable future.
Amen to that..
Yep. And God help us until then.
The matter is that it's not up to the computer or the human player's skills. It's up to their time management efficiency. If the programmer has enough time to go through all the variations that the computer does, to apply the evaluation algorithms that the computer applies, and so on, the result would be the same. But since he's not able to do so, he would assign those duties to the computer, and he will concentrate on creating the algorithms' instead - what the computer can't do, no matter how much time it is given. Simply because a computer does nothing it is not designed to do (except for crashing). Which is the reason computers will never be better than humans at chess understanding.
That's why human players concentrate on thinking about principles and strategy - to save time. This way they needn't go through all the possible variations a move will lead them to if they know that the move will lead to a better position. As Fischer put it, "Don't worry about finding the best move. Just try to find a good move." The player's task is not to predict the future, but to make sure what he plays is consistent. That's why chess, in addition to not going to be solved soon, needn't be solved soon, at least not for the purpose of playing it in a better way.
This guy down the street from me had some spare time during a backyard barbeque and showed very elegantly that the micrometer is redundant. Or was it the ice tongs? He didn't write it down.
I meant they both lead to a draw on best play. The problem with using the "most paths which lead to a win" approach to choosing between different drawn positions, is that the computer would aimlessly exchange pieces, on the basis that almost all replies the opponent can make result in a win for the computer (apart from the obvious one - the recapture). That's why I suggested the lost positions database approach as a different possibility.
I'm a software developer and I've given this some thought (sad, I know!) I can't think of a better option than the database one. I'm all ears though.
I can loan you my t-square.
I have a rubiks cube and a hammer
But I also programmed on the TRS-80 Model I in the late 1970's, which made me feel like a god.
Me too, I wonder how many of us are left.
Chess will never be solved because to solve chess you have to have perfect play.
And because of the incredible variety of responses to any reasonable opening move by white, each of which has their pros and cons, there is no such thing as perfect play.
Also, you would first have to resolve the Hypermodern vs Classical battle, which is virtually impossible.
The matter is that many people expect that if chess can be solved, it will be solved into a singular variation. But proving that is itself not much easier than solving chess.
I believe there is no single solution to chess, but a variety of solutions. What is common between them is called strategy - those are concepts that need to be implemented so that the opponent won't have straight advantage. And as long as applying strategy works well, you needn't solve chess any further.
Everyone's pretty much repeating everything that's already been said.
It's an interesting subject, but I think if it were possible, I wouldn't want it to happen as it would ruin the game.
The answer is: Yes, chess is on the verge of being solved. Probably in a few months.......... Right before the November elections..... . . . . . .
Everybody is just restating what has been argued before.
I've never said this before.
Anything worth doing must be worth overdoing.
People keep going around in circles.
And adding short sentences which don't actually say anything useful to an already worn out topic.
Not sad at all - if nothing else, this stuff is fun to think about.
"I meant they both lead to a draw on best play."
Has this been proved? And at what point does a position change from being "drawn on best play" to "lost on best play"? For all we know, 1.e4 might be lost on best play!
d4 better than e4!! that sounds interesting :)
What about c4? The English opening has something to say...