What will happen if chess got solved?

If chess gets solved - that will not stop internet trolling.

@274

"there are people in this thread who are actually suggesting that chess, when solved, will not be a draw?" ++ It seems there are such people here.

"It's pure romanticism. White begins in zugzwang! Or white begins with forced mate! Sorry, but that's just not the real world." ++ It would contradict all facts and logic.

"Chess is drawn." ++ Yes.

"I wonder if it's even possible for white to lose the game on the first move." ++ Yes

"even after 1. h4 or 1. g4, the position is still drawn"
++ After 1 h4 or 1 f3 it is still a draw, but 1 g4 d5 loses for white.
The weakening of the King's side is too much.

ah yes, tygxc, please continue with your delusions that have been debunked by literal mathematicians. there is no current rigorous proof that chess is a draw. By definition such a proof would require invariants or a fleshed out game tree, neither of which humans have. it is only EXTREMELY LIKELY that chess is a draw.

nobody who has thought about it for longer than a minute seriously believes that chess isnt in all likelihood a draw, but you falsely misrepresent their position as such when they point out that your "proofs" are literally you just waving your hands and declaring games perfect without justification or evidence.

In another forum tygxc just posted:
"We already know chess is a draw."

A falsehood because that's not known.
tygxc has already conceded earlier - more than once that chess cannot be solved with today's technology.
What is special about tygxc and his disinformation and self-contradictions?
Its this: tygxc doesn't troll other people. Unlike Optimissed.
He doesn't personalize himself or other people in the forum.
In other words he doesn't tell falsehoods about others - unlike O.
O does the opposite.
But because tygxc is so different from other disinformationers - he gets a lot of attention.
And obviously - O wants a piece of that action.
Result: there's a 'cycle'.

What?

True, there is no "proof" that chess is a draw. But at the same time, there is no "proof" of a big bang theory. That is, there is nothing that comes right out and declares it absolutely. Yet, to suggest otherwise is to believe something that goes against virtually every observable reality about spacetime and relativity. In much the same way, we can't say, "aha, chess is solved, and white forces a draw in x amount of moves". But we can clearly observe that the closer and closer to perfect both sides play, the probability of the game being drawn increases at the same rate. We observe what happens when chess engines, which can calculate millions and millions of variations per second, play one another. In addition, we observe the sheer number of drawing resources that both sides have from the outset - the only way one side ever wins is when the other side makes a mistake. And even then, there are often ways to save the game. It really is beyond thought that the game could be anything but drawn.

The problem with chess engines is we don't know they are getting closer to perfect play or rather perfect play cause of draws cause apparently computers can draw every game in a bullet game (obviously not perfect there's no way the engine doesn't miss stuff in bullet ) but still drew as much as in a certain year long championship there's a point where engines will platue which is was or happenif

@290

"The problem with chess engines is we don't know they are getting closer to perfect play"
++ For a given time per move engines get closer to perfect play.
One weakness of engines is long term strategy and planning beyond their calculation horizon.
Correspondence chess with a human and engines patches up this weakness: the engine takes care of calculating and the human takes care of long term planning and strategy.
The ongoing WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final led to 112 draws out of 112 games.
17 ICCF (grand)masters qualified through Preliminaries, Semifinals, and Candidates to the Finals.
They play at average 5 days per move.
They avoid no risk and play e.g. Najdorf and Catalan.

Closer is still not perfect and we will not know it's perfect for a long time

It's a bit redundant to use correspondence chsss as the example of they also draw every game in bullet chess

Two completely different formants and continuous draws will most likely mean something's very wrong and the engines are stuck not that chess is solved

@292

human + engine is stronger than engine is stronger than human
5 days/move is stronger than 1 second/move
engine bullet games are presumably not perfect
This years ICCF WC Finals games now have reached perfection and are at least part of a weak solution of chess: redundant, but not yet complete.

However, this thread is about the consequences of chess being weakly solved to the game.

Ummm...no. That's not even remotely comparable. There's a metric ton of scientific evidence and theory involved for the Big Bang. There's only conjecture involved with solving chess. Tygxc's "evidence" is garbage. So that leaves a lot of people all generally agreeing that chess is probably a draw, but there have been *no* significant/robust efforts to solve chess outside of tablebases, which are not going to get there in our lifetimes.

Similarly, there's no real evidence that we are getting "closer and closer to perfect play". Suo

https://www.chess.com/computer-chess-championship

adding fuel to the fire

You missed my point.

I am saying that what he have in both instances is observation. We can say that the Big Bang is proven, not because the stars literally spell it out, but because of the staggering amount of corroborating evidence which indeed suggests, among other things, that our universe had a violent beginning and is expanding. And likewise, we have corroborating evidence which suggests that chess, with perfect play, is drawn.

You can't even prove that there exists consciousness outside of yourself. Yet, you can know it beyond all doubt based on observation.

Everything we know about chess suggests it is drawn. We don't need brute force number crunching to give us a drawing line from move 1 in order to know that chess is a draw. Just a little common sense does that. You can, "yea, but technically..." yourself into a straight jacket if you're not careful. Chess is drawn.

Would be interesting to see.

@296

"Chess is drawn." ++ Yes, of course. The next question is: how to draw?
The ICCF World Championship Finals demonstrate there are several lines that draw.
1 e4 e6
1 e4 c5
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6
1 Nf3 d5
1 Nf3 Nf6

The next question, which is the subject of this thread, is what does this mean for chess as a game?

...which is an opinion, one that carries no weight behind it. Even top super GMs will not state categorically that chess is a forced draw. They say that chess should be a draw with best play.

You can keep crowing about about it ala Tygxc and Optimissed, but you're just as bereft of evidence.

Humans don't normally get draws against computers, the computers will almost always win. So whether computers draw each other most of the time is irrelevant - it proves the opposite, that in real chess matches, there should be winning opportunities for both sides if one has more accurate play (otherwise a super-GM would draw against an engine 10 times out of 10).

@301

"Humans don't normally get draws against computers"
++ Correct, and computers don't normally get draws against humans + computers.

"So whether computers draw each other most of the time is irrelevant" ++ But whether humans + computers at 5 days per move draw all 112 games out of 112 is relevant.

"in real chess matches, there should be winning opportunities for both sides"
++ Yes, in top human games there is average 1 error/game.

Not if the humans can't offer anything beneficial other than opening choices and just follow the top computer move every time

Yes, how helpful are 2800 humans really going to be in partnership with 3600 Elo bots lol? I think this isn't an equal partnership.