Hi guys, I am currently working on a chess AI, from a machine learning background. Here are some of my insights about chess being solved:
Chess has on the order of 10^120 possible games. Thus, it is nearly impossible to store or search these games. There are ~10^81 atoms in the known universe (obviously, if the universe is infinite, there are many more atoms in the universe than 10^120, but we know of around 10^81, and this is a guess, but is still many orders of magnitude away from the number of possible chess games). A corollary of this is that if we mined the entire known universe to produce storage drives, we would not be able to store enough information to solve chess (or even get close).
Most of the research in AI goes toward approximating correct behavior in real-time, so we can only hope to make computers better at chess than before, rather than trying to make computers completely solve chess. Chess computers have surpassed grandmasters in power, but will never solve chess.
Haha yeah, I knew that article was an April's fools, I just meant that King's Gambit is refuted in general (no GM's play it anymore, it isn't considered optimal)
So, in your opinion, Carlson, Ivanchuk, Polgar, Short, and Nakamura (all of whom have played KG's in the last year as white) are what if not GMs?
Why are you so hostile? Obviously I didn't know this -- my apologies! Would appreciate if you would point me to these games, sounds interessting.
I'm not being hostile, I'm simply taking you at your word and asking the logical follow-up question based on the premise of your claim.