Hopefully, for Naka's sake, that gives him just enough time to beat Carlsen once... just one game.
-------------
As long as humans challenge other humans, chess will be fine. Naka has no room to complain. Chess isn't going anywhere in 10 years.
Why did Nakamura say that chess has another 10 years
Sort:
Besides, I can't find such a quote. Better to link it for us.
about 8-10 years ago, on icc after one of his bullet matches, he was taking questions from the gallery (as he often did), and I asked him how long he thought he would be playing the game, and he gave a similar answer: about 20 more years, and the preparation and demands of the computer in that preparation would "kill" the game.
So within 10 years time every IM and GM will have learnt all of the mates that can be forced but require more than 50 moves?
Like the one that requires about 550 moves? 
[COMMENT DELETED]
pdve wrote:
hope I don't provoke a debate
Except that's exactly what you hope.
-------------------------
It may comfort you to know they said chess was about to die 100 years ago, because the best openings were already figured out (queen's gambit declined of course). And all the top games would be draws.
Fischer is a different story, mostly about massive cognitive dissonance in that clip (linked in the now deleted comment so NVM I guess).
Well if you want to go ahead and debate then go ahead. I don't find Fischer's views offensive because I understand his mindset.
Mayan calendar
Lol, solved. Chess is being "solved" with incorrect algorithms, so even though computers win, they're still holistically incorrect and sending the game down the wrong path.
p.s. Red Bull's poison.
Jan 16, 2015
0
#11
yes_dear wrote:
Lol, solved. Chess is being "solved" with incorrect algorithms, so even though computers win, they're still holistically incorrect and sending the game down the wrong path.
What? Do you know what sovled means in this context? If an algorithm does eventually solve chess, how is that incorrect?
Part of what "solved" would mean would be a thing that had happened in the past... not what might (or even will) happen in the future.
Computers appear strong because they do not have human weaknesses. intuition is still stronger than computers because it utilizes parallel pathways in the brain and such things as reinforcement and verification.
That's what they said about John Henry.
pfren wrote:
furtiveking wrote:
yes_dear wrote:
Lol, solved. Chess is being "solved" with incorrect algorithms, so even though computers win, they're still holistically incorrect and sending the game down the wrong path.
What? Do you know what sovled means in this context? If an algorithm does eventually solve chess, how is that incorrect?
All engine algorithms use pruning. Do you know what is this, or not?
Here is one of the side-effects of engine pruning. From the diagram, it is Black to play. What is Black's best move, which guarantees an easy win?
The Master with the Black pieces needed a couple of minutes to find it. An engine may "think" for years, without result. If you switch off numa/ pruning, then usually it will find the correct move within five to ten minutes. But trying to solve chess using brute force calculations would need two eternities and a half.
If it was one of my games, I would play Be4, it creates a nice outpost for the bishop and the pawn and the bishop becomes indestructible. It's easy and safe.
However, since it seems to be a difficult choice, I would, maybe play...Bg4? With the idea of cutting off communications between the two pawns and distract the white king while I make a run for a1? Perhaps I could take advantage of my superiority in white's kingside and use my black king to destroy the two white pawns?
In other news:
Titanic unsinkable!
War now outlawed!
I think he mean's he think's in 10 year's computer's will be so much better then human's that all the people at home will watch their engine's play? I don't exactly get why he'd say this. I'm quite sure chess won't be solved in 10 years! lol, but maybe engine's will become much stronger...You never know.
Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented."
pfren wrote:
Aetheldred wrote:
If it was one of my games, I would play Be4, it creates a nice outpost for the bishop and the pawn and the bishop becomes indestructible. It's easy and safe.
However, since it seems to be a difficult choice, I would, maybe play...Bg4? With the idea of cutting off communications between the two pawns and distract the white king while I make a run for a1? Perhaps I could take advantage of my superiority in white's kingside and use my black king to destroy the two white pawns?
Black has a single way to win, all other moves lead to a draw. A win is only possible if the king gets active ASAP.
The right move is 47...Bh3!! which Shirov played after relatively little thought. Well, out of 14 legal moves, the sole winning move is the engine's last, or second last choice.
Wow, if I was white, I would take the bishop without a second thought. Amazing move by Shirov. I guess if you don't take the bishop, the two white pawns become messed up anyway. Things like this are the reason I fell in love with this game. Thank you pfren.
I hear that when asked about computers analyzing chess and the game becoming unplayable, Nakamura said that chess has about 10 more years. Is it really that bad and why did he say that?
Are all openings getting exhaustively analyzed or what. My guess is that even if computers 'solved' chess, the solution would be incomphrehensible to humans and we would still be playing in the same way.