424 and what about if you can have infinite queens, like on Chess.com? It would be way more.
What will happen if chess got solved?
Sort:
@426
"infinite queens" ++ There can be no more than 18 queens: 9 white and 9 black.
If both sides play perfectly, then there will be no more than 2 white and 2 black queens.
Here is an example perfect game with 4 queens.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360139
Aug 4, 2024
0
#404
I said infinite, because you can get a queen for every pawn you promote. I did not really mean infinite.
Aug 4, 2024
0
#405
tygxc wrote:
@423
"Chess is way more complicated than connect four." ++ Yes
"It has almost infinite positions." ++ There are 4.82*10^44 legal chess positions, 3*10^37 possible from 1 box of 32 chess men, and 10^38 from a luxury box of 32 chess men + spare black & white queens. For a weak solution of chess 10^17 are relevant.
this 10^17 is a long debunked claim, where you make some personal assumptions and then assume the game tree is already pruned. it has been debunked for literally years and there is no one on this planet besides you who makes that claim.
you can cite articles for every number besides the 10^17, because the 10^17 is a personal delusion.
To memorize a weak solution after it is found, it is not necessary to memorize 10^17 positions, but some strategic rules derived from the solution.
objectively false. in order for a weak solution to be comprised of anything less than the entire game tree, an invariant must be found. considering how no invariant has been discovered yet for chess, it is extremely unlikely that any will be discovered.
Allis showed perfect Connect Four play with 9 strategic rules. For Chess it will be more.
you dont understand basic math. there were no strategic rules for connect four. there were invariants.
for the layman, tygxc claiming "strategic rules" is the equivalent of just assuming something is true without any proof. an "invariant" is where you actally prove such "strategic rules"
Tygxc why are you trying to mislead new people when literal mathematicians have debunked your claims?
Aug 4, 2024
0
#406
Every game would draw, and people would invent a new strategy game.
Aug 4, 2024
0
#407
Actually, I think it would be too complex for a human to memorize
Aug 6, 2024
0
#408
@Jokey all you’ve said is “hmmm” “interesting” “yup” “now it’s getting complex”
You Have Any Theories.
If chess were solved:
Games would end in draws with perfect play.
Competitions might lose excitement.
Chess theory might become obsolete.
New variants or games might gain popularity.
It’s fucking hilarious that every player less than a 150 seems to know 20 different strategies for attack and they know every move on countering moves.. lolol this fkin app is a joke
JayChat248 wrote:
It’s ****** hilarious that every player less than a 150 seems to know 20 different strategies for attack and they know every move on countering moves.. lolol this fkin app is a joke
Are you talking about bots? 150? I don't get it.
JayChat248 wrote:
It’s hilarious that every player less than a 150 seems to know 20 different strategies for attack and they know every move on countering moves.. lolol this fkin app is a joke
Your giving your opponents too much credit lol they may know how the pieces work but they don't know how they move sure they can create tactics but they usually aren't good tactics if they are it's typically lucky
If chess were solved, it would likely always end in a draw with perfect play from both sides. The game would become less about strategy and more about following known moves, reducing its excitement and variety. It would also show how powerful AI can be in solving complex problems.
markwilly5 wrote:
If chess were solved, it would likely always end in a draw with perfect play from both sides. The game would become less about strategy and more about following known moves, reducing its excitement and variety. It would also show how powerful AI can be in solving complex problems.
No it would not. Stockfish already provides anything you need for preparation because it's well strong enough for human chess. The rate of preparation wouldnt change whether you follow stockfish or a solved line.
I also don't believe the difference in knowledge would result in more draws either. Even today top players would rather not follow top lines because they're drawish - they go for suboptimal but practically tricky for the opponent.
@421
"once your opponent finds a move thats deviates but is practically good, you're on your own"
++ You always get to a point where you are on your own, but the deviating move may be an error allowing you to win. You can be confident you made no mistake.
Sure but the point is that this is already the case with engine prepared lines when playing against humans.