should we stop making chess engines?

chess engines are used for analysing games and the better the engine, the better the analysis. However there's a problem with this. what if we create an engine so magnificent that it finds the solution to chess. if this happens then people will just look it up and every game will be a draw. until someone beats the best chess engine we should stop making them because i don't want my favourite game to be demolished.   

Yeah, but someone will play a few ok but non-best moves and the memorizers will be out of the book!

That's why you don't use an engine while you play..

You misunderstand the complexity. There will be no engine that plays perfectly.

And even with EGTB draws, you can look at them, but they're totally confusing. They don't help you play well.

Yeah, let's not solve chess, or people might start to learn the quintillios of possible lines and sidelines to play perfectly. But only after the building of a matriochka brain, because not any computer will be able to solve chess (a Matriochka brain probably could not either)

chess will still be competitive at our level. however no-one would watch super GMs play because they actually would.

in our lifetimes chess won't be solved despite this i don't want an art to be destroyed in 200 years. chess needs to live on.

Chess engines have effectively already solved chess, as far as any human is concerned.

No one cares since it has nothing to do with practical human play, even at the GM level.

Computers are great for opening prep and for talented players with few opportunities to learn.

Engines simply cannot be disinvented.  They're here to stay, for good or ill.

You'll have to do better than the logic below, because I 100% guarantee it wont happen in 200 years.

Chess is really big.

Computers are really fast.

really = really, therefore computers can solve chess some day.

Also this.

They already suggest lines that we can't take seriously because to play them would require an impractical follow up, so we opt for logical moves instead.

In the game of go players have been doing this since before computers -- playing purposefully not best moves in order to keep the game in control.

i didn't mean exactly 200 years it could be 10 years or even 1000. but chess has been around for 1500 years. a lot of the time we try to preserve art. but this time we're slowly destroying it.

And yet more people play today than at any other time in history.

Nope, not even in 10,000 years.

Note that if you could store 1 position per atom, a storage device as large as the moon couldn't contain the solution to chess.

Not even if it were as big as the earth

or the sun

or the solar system...

when we find the solution to chess it'll be destroyed. the creation of engines are slowly destroying it. that was my point. 

didn't know that. just wondering where can i find a source for your information. 

Google number of position in chess (not Shannon's number, which is the game tree complexity, which is bigger because it counts e.g. games with transpositions as having all unique positions).

Then google number of atoms in earth, sun, etc.

If only man had never discovered fire and invented the wheel...how much better off the world would be.  The world, I mean.  Humans would be fubared.

You can't wish to remain ignorant.  

A lot of progress has been made in developing "number-crunching" chess engines that are able to play at a very high level. The sort of engines that will really be interesting for players at all levels are chess engines that can progressively learn to play chess. Such an engine should:

• Play without an opening book
• Make mistakes and learn from them
• Develop its own style of play based on a certain strategy

That means the same engine on a grandmaster's computer will eventually start playing like a grandmaster through acquired experience.

Chess is already ruined because of engines so at this point it makes no difference.