will chess ever die out once its fully solved?

Another typical coolout strawman. *Yawn* 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Ah, so this is your way of conceding. You were utterly incorrect, but it was just a semantics issue so not important right? I guess what is important is that you keep calling me "kid" and "bud". I suppose that lowers your blood pressure every time you get to say those.

I will stop coming back to it once you admit you were entirely incorrect regarding it. This must be getting embarrassing for you at this point, yes?

Once again, no argument being had. Just me pointing out and systematically correcting all the crap that comes out of your mouth.

Good thing about chess is that it's like the various types of Magic: The Gathering and the various types of poker (it won't be solved). Some say that chess was invented by the gods/goddesses in order to entertain themselves. I mean, wouldn't strong chess engines already have "solved" chess by now???

𝐴 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑦𝑒𝑠...𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔,,  -𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒; 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑎 𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 "𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑒" 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑔𝑜𝑜𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑! 

 "𝑃𝑙𝑠 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒, 𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑚𝑒 𝑠𝑜!.  (𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑚)

Yeah, it's like, if you want to troll, fine, but saying 100 ridiculous things in a single post has the opposite effect... people will just ignore you.

Ok, coolout I have to ask.... Am I the least favourite person you've met on the site so far? i know you've said you're gonna leave soon so It may not matter. But it would be at least a small achievement if I was

The reason I ask is because the 2 biggest trolls on the site over the last year (Colby and Jason Repa) both explicitly told me that I was the worst person on the site... so it'd be nice to get a third guy to add to the list.

Actually I have been quite consistent. Musle memory exists, but it is poorly named because muscles cannot store memory. like how a guinea pig is not actually a pig, this doesn't mean that guinea pigs dont exist

Well, players will become even better in the future. Not to the extent of computers, but still, the more chess is solved, the more perfect top humans will play as well. They will probably never be on the level of the engines, but there will probably be the moment, after chess is solved, when playing chess on the highest level will not be interesting, even though people can't really memorize this many potential games.

Casual players will be able to play it longer for sure. This will probably not happen in our lifetime however. People will either have to come up with even more complicated game - something like 12x12 chess with some other pieces to spice up the things, or for instance play something like 360 Chess. But it all depends on the wishes of those people in the future. Perhaps they will not be interested in a game like chess, so it just dies out in a 100 years for instance. We can only guess.

Columbo mysteries were solved by the viewer in the first 10 minutes of every episode, but people still watch Columbo.

It cannot be solved ,unless you use a super super super ... computer.At the rate computers evolve ,we'd all be dead by the time it gets solved (if it can be solved).

#80
Chess can be solved. It takes 5 years on present cloud computers, so it is a matter of money: a few millions.

Has chess been solved? No.
Can chess be solved? Yes.
Will chess be solved? Maybe, depends on somebody paying a few million $ on it.

Have humans walked on Mars? No.
Can humans walk on Mars? Yes.
Will humans walk on Mars? Maybe, depens on somebody paying a few billion $ on it.

That's a ridiculous statement.

#82
Not at all.

""Chess is an exact mathematical problem. The solution comes from two sides: the opening and the endgame. The middlegame does not exist. The middlegame is a well-studied opening. An opening should result in an endgame.... Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess. I feel that power." Sveshnikov

He was right.

"He was right"

Well, that certainly settles it /sarcasm

And even if he were right, he's not talking about solving chess.

And remember that we only have 7 man EGTB, with each step being (literally) exponentially larger. If we were 5 years away it'd be more like most of the way through the 32 piece EGTB.

Oh wow, in 2007? Then he was definitely full of crap, because some top player or correspondence player would have already done it.

I mean, the amount of ignorance it takes to believe him is astounding.

It takes 5 years of computers and assistants, that is a few million $.
Solving chess requires visiting about 10^19 positions. That is in reach of present cloud engines. It just takes the time and money to do it.
To solve chess does not need a 32 men table base. It is enough to prove that black can draw against all sensible white moves.

#88
TCEC imposes unbalanced openings to avoid all draws.
That Sveshnikov said this in 2007 does not mean it should have been done by now: somebody needs to spend a few million $ for 5 years of computer time and human assistants first. The limitation is not the technology, it is the economy.

Well, there is a problem of how much assistans and how many computers he needed in 2007 to solve chess by 2012. Surely, if every single super computer we had at the time together with every single tech company and university would focus on solving chess, we would have done it. Probably doubling the time to get the administration and logistics going.