Will chess die once computers inevitably solves it?

Look at connect four, checkers, tic tac toe. Nobody plays those games anymore because computers found the perfect way to win or tie in every match. What will happen when chess gets solved? Will chess die entirely? Carlsen will have to find a new job? 

It doesn't scale like that.

It's like saying people get faster every year, so they'll eventually outrun a train. It doesn't make any sense. Only people who know nothing about it talk like that.

Chess will outlive all games. Computer solving chess doesn't take away the Mystery of chess. If people knows the solution to chess is 1 x 10^9 Terabytes, the more people will be fascinated to play chess.

After chess is solved computationally, then computers might stop playing it.

Not sure why you would expect people to stop, though. Just to write down the hypothetical solution would require more paper than the entire Earth could produce.

How can you "memorize a winning line" without memorizing your best reply to each of Black's replies, and then again at the next move, and again...

You underestimate the effect of geometric growth. Suppose that Black has only five plausible replies each time White plays a move. By move 10 (which is STILL solidly in the opening!) You would need to have memorized 9,765,625 different lines... and that's only to reach move 10!

The question posted by this thread is a moot point given that modern chess engines are far stronger than the majority of chess players using this site.

Given Chess.com has a healthy user base, the answer is a foregone conclusion.

To the layman, the strength of chess playing computers and their ability to “solve chess” is irrelevant. For the chess elite, such technology offers intrigue as positions previously thought of as a draw or lost are proved otherwise.

In fact, it was the lacklustre in development of standalone chess computers that caused their demise.

As for other games such as Connect 4 (4 in a row), Naughts and Crosses (OXO), Othello (Reversi) etc - again, their decline from popularity has nothing to do with computers “solving” the games for the same reasons outlined above especially where the layman is concerned. However, the intrusion of mobile technology and the fragmentation of family unity amongst other reasons has resulted in people moving away from sitting round a table and playing a board game as a social past-time. The result is that a board game is not the first thought when there is spare time to use up.

It is a shame that children are not brought up playing boardgames such as Ludo, Sorry, Guess Who etc as board games teach important cognitive, social and team-working skills.

Did you just create an account and decide to post a question without searching the forum first?

Try memorizing the solution to B+B vs N pawnless endgame and let me know how that goes.

If you can't even memorize a "simple" endgame then how do you expect to memorize a winning line from the opening?

I know you're just a kid, so you'll say nonsense from time to time, but I'm disappointed that in spite of your rating you say nonsense like this.

Ok, but modern popular computer games teach plenty of thinking skills and are arguably more complex (and therefore more instructive).

That's not possible.

It's like saying once we build a skyscraper that reaches Mars. It doesn't make any sense.

There are no physical laws preventing it, but it still doesn't make any sense.

I think that there are two reasons why Chess enjoys continued success over the games listed in the OP’s post. Chess has transitioned well with modern technology. Games like Monopoly have really struggled in this respect.

Games like Connect 4, Naughts and Crosses and Othello are logical games. Forget computers, even as humans, once one as figured out the tactics of the game one will either win or draw. Othello is a case in point. Once one understands that the corners are most valuable, followed by the edges and then the four centre squares, one can strategise to control the board and after that, unless one played a series of serious blunders, the opponent doesn’t get a look in. This is not the case in Chess. One slip and if your opponent is alert and able, they can gain control over the game.

Previous discussions and articles on Chess.com have talked about why competition chess and chess clubs have suffered in resent years. Funding and social changes are just a couple of factors. The fact that board games have fallen out of fashion and not seen as “cool” any more is another factor.

Scrabble, Go and to some degree, Draughts are the only other games that I know of that enjoy anywhere near the ongoing success of Chess. Even then, most people in general society do not or have never played any of those games, including Chess.

Whatever the case, I don’t think that the ongoing improvement in technology has an influence. Chess was just used as a measure of where artificial intelligence was compared to human intelligence. Notwithstanding physical agility (which is also improving apace) the state of computer “intelligence” only tells us that in a computer vs human conflict, computers would have the tactical edge. Soon they’ll have the edge in agility too.

It's kind of good if chess is a dead draw, cuz otherwise people'll start playing the "winning opening". I think in any solid opening Black can make a draw against the best possible White's moves. But people always make mistakes, no one is perfect. It's not possible for a human to play without mistakes.

people plays tic tac toe, and we all know is resolved since ever.

Carlsen will find a new job in the future. Run for president like Kasparov?

leek

Carlsen won't retire early. He would beat Korchnoi's record of oldest GM within Top 100.

When Carlsen retires,he would write "My 600 Most Memorable Games".

Didn't you know? Carlsen created a unique Fish and Chips recipe and have it patented. He can live on royalties as fish and chips will outsell hamburgers and fried chickens. It's healthier.

Straw man. I said "Suppose that Black has only five plausible replies each time White plays a move", That automatically assumes that you are ignoring crap like Nh3 or Ke2.

You try to obfuscate my point instead of answering it.

A chess game with the best play from both sides will always lead to a draw.