Is Chess on the verge of being solved?

What math? please let me know if u can....

From Wikipedia:

"New In Chess observed in its 2000 Yearbook that of the 731,740 games in its database, White scored 54.8% overall; with the two most popular opening moves, White scored 54.1% in 349,855 games beginning 1.e4, and 56.1% in 296,200 games beginning 1.d4. The main reason that 1.e4 was less effective than 1.d4 was the Sicilian Defence (1.e4 c5), which gave White only a 52.3% score in 145,996 games."

So, statistically 1.d4 scored a bit better than 1.e4, at least in the matches from New in Chess' database. But, as all statistical data, it's not applicable to particular cases. Otherwise said, you shouldn't prefer 1.d4 to 1.e4 only because those statistics said it scores better on average. There have been games won with 1.e4 c5, and you may be amongst those that win with that variation more than with 1.d4.

I also prefer 1.d4 though

Well yes, I'm working from the assumption that chess is drawn on best play. That's a seperate topic and there are many threads on it, so let's not start that debate here.

 There is a proof that white is actually in zugzwang at the first move, so all moves lose with best play. It was a 33 page mathematical proof in a book on Fermat's last theorem. I have not found it online, and it is too much for me to write down, but there it is.

@Glex thankyou :) seems everyone has a preference....

Yes, the answer is 42.

I've never said this before.

That can't be right, unless you're rounding.

if you do not play well it will never be "solved", this is the advantage of stupidity..the game does not get old.

Ok I take what I said back. There is a way to solve chess.

Solving chess will spell the end for chess engine competitions. If a 32-piece tablebase is easily accessible, then solving chess will render internet chess unplayable (cheating would be rife with no effective way of proving it). However, it will not have a great impact on human v human OTB chess at the club level at least. Players will continue to play the same openings they have always played, follow the same strategy they have always followed. I doubt chess at the professional level will continue as it does now, and would have to adapt somehow. I mean, when big prize money and funding is concerned, who is going to stump up the cash for a board game that has been solved, the solution being out there? Of course, it would be impossible for a human to memorize such a complex solution, however, the stigma of dedicating your life to a solved game will tarnish chess at the professional level.

On a final note, analysing your games will become quite a dull affair, as you consult your 32-piece tablebase you will remark, "damn, I missed a chance to force mate in 86 moves, giving my opponent the chance to force stalemate in 180 moves..." 

Yes, this is probably what will happen. I also think human vs human play won't be ffected much.

Things will continue the same way as they are now - even now there are opening lines considered to be "best play", but what professional chess players do is seek for brilliances, or even not so good but unexpected moves, in order to take their opponent out of book and capitalize on their pre-game preparation.

The same will continue even if chess gets solved - there will again be "best play" lines, no matter they will have been calculated by a machine rather than a human. But if one knows a "solved" line, once he's out of it he should either transpose into another "solved" line (which will, more or less, mean he'll have to be familiar with at least a majority of the "solved" lines - something that will be hard to do), or rely on chess knowledge and think for himself.

That's what is chess' challenge - being familiar with exact solutions only can hardly bring you success itself (unless at situations that are simple enough for you to memorize their proper way to play - for example some "exact" endgames), as there is such a big variety of possible lines and positions that a human mind can (currently) not entirely memorize. Even if there's a solution found for them. That's why humans will continue relying on general chess knowledge, for simplification purposes.

Everyone should and will continue doing what they are best at: computers - calculating, humans - reasoning. To change that you should change computers and humans. But that is even more unprobable than solving chess.

Chess might end up being solved by computers, but show me a human who can memorize or calculate the solutions for each position like that computer. This one factor will always make chess a wonderful game to play.

Sure, no problem. Once you get the web enabled brain implant, it will be no problem to access the computer remotely by simply daydreaming about chess.com.....

I think you will also need something I have been wondering about, that is, if it was developed during the cold war. Imagine for a moment( if you understand FM modulation) being able to know what your opponent thinks before he confirms it. If you had something that could receive and decypher brain waves and then couple it with the mind controlled brain inplant you spoke of. This would be the best way to stymie their attack, but what happens if they have the same equipment. You are then forced to think one thing and at last second make a random move, which will turn it into a slowed down form of blitz chess. So anyone who loves this game and is really intelligent enough to not only be that good at it, but also to see what I am ,will realize the futility in trying to gain an unfair advantage of that magnitude, it eventually will make the game, a waste of time.

With the human factors, such as error, bravado, intuition, capriciousness, inventiveness, clock pressure etc, etc, there is no possible way timed chess, as it is currently most often played (say, 20 min per player) will EVER be "solved".

Assuming, of course, you're contemplating a game played by 2 people, be they Aronian v. Carlsen, or just us mere mortals; not 2 computer programs.

I believe there will come a time when two computers could play ad infinitum with the outcome invariably being a draw. Not only that, but analysis of 1000 consecutive games would probably find very little variation in moves made...I'm imagining somewhere in the range of 1 % deviation. And really, who gives a fuck if two computers will achieve mutual masturbatory climax? As long as they aren't trying to plug into my socket, I say let them have at it

That's the great thing about being human:

our limitations and/or proclivities regarding strengths and weaknesses in the various aspects of the great game we all love, that give us each an individual chess identity.

Uh, that may be a great thing about being human, but the great thing?

Yes, that's why Blitz is so exiciting to watch as a spectator. It introduces a very human element to the game; time managment/pressure, the occassion, speed at which you move the pieces, psychology etc. These are the type of things computers will never eradicate from the game, which is why human v human OTB games (possibly blitz games over the internet) will always continue. Chess is not all about theory and perfect play, it's about getting your opponent to crack and pounce on the mistake with tenacity.

Oh, the willfully obtuse.

Perhaps, had I italicized and capped and underlined the word "the" at the start of that sentence, there might be some justification for your comment. I suppose then you might be correct to question the inappropriately penultimate nature of said sentence.

However, it's windex clear to any other properly functioning adult mind that this is not what I was implying. I was speaking solely about the...sorry, for your addle-minded sake I'll use "a" in place of "the"...I was speaking solely about a great thing about being human with regards to chess. I was not implying that our penchant as humans for inevitable variation in our chess play was the end all beat all of human existence.

Man. I mean, haven't you ever smoked high-grade heroin post-coitus with a ridiculously hot and gifted fuck buddy? I'd burn my chess board in effigy and find a back alley sawbones to perform a partial lobotomy, or even take a stab at self trepanation, with the intention of scrambling up that microscopic part of my memory where anything chess related resides in a heartbeat if the choice was ever posited; "ok pal, what's it gonna be...the opiated over-sexed vixen, or the chess board?"

Heh...

Cuneglas,

Very succinctly stated...especially the last bit; 

Chess is not all about theory and perfect play, it's about getting your opponent to crack and pounce on the mistake with tenacity.