x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - in Win Phone Store

# What will be the impact of chess being solved?

• #21

Heh, I think you're paraphrasing.  "I have had many people tell me they don't like to talk to me because, I think too much"

Help me out here, walk me though a conversation (without paraphrasing) that leads to the statement "I don't enjoy talking to you because you think to much"

• #22

I am going to concoct my own thinking serum, after taking it, I will be able  win all the chess games I play, including those against engines. Then I will invent my own new chess-like game and take on all comers and their computers and I think I will think myself into oblivion...I think...

• #23

Could you memorise at least 10^60 possible moves?

• #24
chrisr2212 wrote:
zborg wrote:

Solving chess will (likely) only prove that it's a draw.

And didn't we alreadly know that?  So what's the problem here?

Now that's intuitive!

but pigs do fly and turkeys do the riverdance!

NM Reb argued (in another thread) that "solving" chess will have no practical significance for OTB.  No human could ever keep the various "solutions" in their head, so why lose sleep over the problem?

I thought turkeys (were so dumb) they could drown themselves in a rainstorm by looking up, and opening their mouths.  Their riverdance must be truly amazing to watch.

• #25

turkeys also play laser chess

• #26
waffllemaster wrote:

Heh, I think you're paraphrasing.  "I have had many people tell me they don't like to talk to me because, I think too much"

Help me out here, walk me though a conversation (without paraphrasing) that leads to the statement "I don't enjoy talking to you because you think to much"

To quote one verbatim would be a bit of a task at the moment but, if the conversation involves anything having to do "one thing" that has multiple facets, that each could require a 10 minute or so conversation to get them up to speed, so that they even understand when I try to make a simple statement, that otherwise makes no sense to them or they refuse to give any merit to because, I can't either reach into my pocket for something or use three words to prove it.

My wife wonders why I don't enjoy talking to her about other people's affairs or how work went. It isn't that I don't care, but normally I have my mind on so many other things, that are far more involved that, she can't stand that can normally finish her sentences or know what all she will tell me, after the first 5 words.

Ocassionally I will miss something that was a bit of a plot twist and when I do she doesn't let me forget it. She hates it that I tell her she could have told me what she was surprising me with more directly and that we then could have engaged in a conversation about it, but I guess she would rather try to decide each step for my brain or atleast it seems that way. She gets angry that I like to spend so much time here enjoying my nerdfest, I particularly think she is affraid I will find a female friend I enjoy talking to. I have noticed her tendency to get jealous even if I talk to a woman who lives half way around the world. I have a joke for that but, its too "long" for this post...

• #27
zborg wrote:
chrisr2212 wrote:
zborg wrote:

Solving chess will (likely) only prove that it's a draw.

And didn't we alreadly know that?  So what's the problem here?

Now that's intuitive!

but pigs do fly and turkeys do the riverdance!

NM Reb argued (in another thread) that "solving" chess will have no practical significance for OTB.  No human could ever keep the various "solutions" in their head, so why lose sleep over the problem?

I thought turkeys (were so dumb) they could drown themselves in a rainstorm by looking up, and opening their mouths.  Their riverdance must be truly amazing to watch.

The wild ones are smart enough to use their senses, to stay off of most dinner tables.

• #28

Sounds like different ways of communicating, not different amounts of thinking.

• #29

chess will not be solved in our lifetime

• #30
waffllemaster wrote:

Sounds like different ways of communicating, not different amounts of thinking.

In all fairness, different types of communication don't necessarily require more thought than another, but sometimes they do. I guess it would be equally fair to say, I prefer certain thought patterns over others, as it is apparent my wife does also. I don't necessarily think that makes either of us wrong, just different.We used to really like to talk to each other, I guess we have begun to run out of things to talk about.

My mother and sister are two people who usually tell me they don't want to put as much thought into a conversation as it would require, due to the direction I have turned it. I once had another elcetrician on a job start talking to me about something and he said " remind me to never smoke a joint with you"...

• #31

My guess would be shorter time increments, Blitz would become more popular

• #32
Vivinski wrote:

My guess would be shorter time increments, Blitz would become more popular

I think the shear amount of calculation and memory already required to be really adept at chess, has already caused this phenomenon, in an attempt to level the playing field. What's next, you play 15 moves each and then let the best engine see who is ahead for the win?

• #33

If there are at least 10^60 ways to move the pieces as they say, and you counted one per second 24 hours a day, it would take you OVER  10^50 years to count them. The universe is only 1.3 x 10^10 years old. That means about 10^40 times the age of the universe. Do you think you would have time to memorise them all? I don't.

• #34
Conflagration_Planet wrote:

If there are at least 10^60 ways to move the pieces as they say, and you counted one per second 24 hours a day, it would take you OVER  10^50 years to count them. The universe is only 1.3 x 10^10 years old. That means about 10^40 times the age of the universe. Do you think you would have time to memorise them all? I don't.

I don't either, but a really good engine with some awesome state of the artliquid cooled, multiprocessor, super computer, can can calculate more than I can calculate, at the moment, either way you perceive the meaning of what I said.

• #35

So what? Even if it's solved, there's no danger of you learning all the moves. Checkers is solved, and people still play it, with it's mere five hundred billion billion possible moves. They say chess has at least forty more zeros than checkers.

• #36
Conflagration_Planet wrote:

So what? Even if it's solved, there's no danger of you learning all the moves. Checkers is solved, and people still play it, with it's mere five hundred billion billion possible moves. They say chess has at least forty more zeros than checkers.

• #37

Tablebases are a good measure of how far we have come to solving chess.  Chess already is effectively "solved" when there is 6 or fewer pieces on the board (this number includes kings), thanks to tablebases.  The storage capacity of tablebases become exponentially large very quickly though.  Supposedly 7 piece tablebases are nearing completion but due to their sheer size, they are too unwieldly to be very useful at the moment.

• 3-piece 62 Kilobytes
• 4-piece 30 Megabytes
• 5-piece 7.1 Gigabytes
• 6-piece somewhere around 1.2 Terabytes (becoming feasable to store on modern personal computers)
• 7-piece somewhere around 200-500 Terabytes
• 8-piece somewhere around 40-180 Petabytes
• 9-piece ??????????

It's going to be a long, long time before Chess is effectively solved.  Once we get to 15-piece tablebases, which is already unimaginably large though, we can start to bridge the gap with the help of opening knowledge to kind of "meet in the middle" in solving chess from a practical point of view.  But trying to make a complete 32-piece (ie all the pieces, or the entirety of chess in other words) tablebase will be an excercise in futility and will likely never happen.

In short, Chess is still very far from solved in the theoretical sense.

• #38

Let's pretend that chess is solved, and the latest version of Rybka plays perfect chess.  Surely this would ruin chess, since nobody could ever be beaten simply by always playing the same move that perfect Rybka plays! But wait a minute....why not do this now?  The current version of Rybka can already beat all humans, so just memorize all of Rybka's moves and you will be world champion. Good luck in this endeavor!!

• #39
fyy0r wrote:

Tablebases are a good measure of how far we have come to solving chess.  Chess already is effectively "solved" when there is 6 or fewer pieces on the board (this number includes kings), thanks to tablebases.  The storage capacity of tablebases become exponentially large very quickly though.  Supposedly 7 piece tablebases are nearing completion but due to their sheer size, their too unwieldly to be very useful at the moment.

3-piece 62 Kilobytes 4-piece 30 Megabytes 5-piece 7.1 Gigabytes 6-piece somewhere around 1.2 Terabytes (becoming feasable to store on modern personal computers) 7-piece somewhere around 200-500 Terabytes 8-piece somewhere around 40-180 Petabytes 9-piece ??????????

It's going to be a long, long time before Chess is effectively solved.  Once we get to 15-piece tablebases, which is already unimaginably large though, we can start to bridge the gap with the help of opening knowledge to kind of "meet in the middle" in solving chess from a practical point of view.  But trying to make a complete 32-piece (ie all the pieces, or the entirety of chess in other words) tablebase will be an excercise in futility and will likely never happen.

In short, Chess is still very far from solved in the theoretical sense.

When I juxtapose your very descriptive and thorough post with how 960's additional starting positions would look, if interjected into the same arrangement for the data, my cerebral cortex starts waving a white flag...

• #40

Not all positions from 960 chess are unique remember, just the starting position.  That's part of its appeal of course, for example endgames are still the same.

Top
or

Online Now