I just think chess can be good for beginners if it's ever solved. No world championship. No Computer chess. Just let the beginners have fun.
Tic Tac Toe is a forced draw.
People play Tic Tac Toe.
Chess can be solved with ultimate complexity.
People can still play chess.
If chess is solved at any point, it will be just a matter of not learning it all.
And I don't think It is even possible to solve chess. If a computer is there for a ton of years and gets it, where is the storage?
@theultratrap - there is NO WAY that ANYONE will be able to memorize all forced lines. Regardless of whether or not computers can solve it, humans are humans. This is especially true if shorter time controls are involved. Already, most games have novelties before move 15, so to say that all drawn lines will be memorized is just silly.
#115
There are many, many transpositions, that is why 10^120 >> 10^38.
E.g. 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 is the same position as 1 Nf3 c5 2 e4, but a different game.
There are 8e+67 ways to shuffle a 52 card deck, that does not make bridge impossible to solve.
Tic Tac Toe, Checkers, Nine Men's Morris, Connect-Four have all been solved, are still played, but not competitively any more.
Indeed, people will not be able to memorize the solution. Nepo lost against Carlsen in game 6 of the world championship and MVL lost against Caruana in the Yekaterinburg Candidates in known table base draw positions.
@fayez58 - where on earth did you hear that the King's Gambit has been solved? Nepo's chessable course has over 300 lines and none end with black with anything more than a slight centipawn advantage and lots of practical chances for white. And Nepo's course only studies Nf3 lines. Polgar and Fischer favored Bc4 lines
We've had this thread before, more or less, with Ponz's thread.
Chess will never be fully solved. That's the general conclusion that was reached on the thread, in the light of the realities and necessities of "solving" it, although there were some who didn't or wouldn't accept that.
Of course it won't die out in the hypothetical case that it's solved, because it's such an interesting game and, in any case, since chess is indisputably a forced draw with best play by both sides, the drawing margin allows the possibility of new openings continuing to be invented and so on.
#99
No, 10^53 is an obsolete figure.
The number of possible positions is lower.
The number of legal positions is even lower.
The number of sensible positions is even lower.
The number of relevant positions is even lower.
That's irrelevant though, because the number of positions only discusses combinations of pieces, whereas the possibility of visiting each position twice and shuffling the pieces in between increases the number of permutations astronomically from an already inconceivably large figure. The only way chess will ever be "solved" is therefore algorithmically and we don't have the necessary position evaluation algorithms as yet, if we ever do.
@optimissed - the question wasn't whether or not it would be solved, but rather if it were solved, would it affect human play. I believe that it won't because humans can't possibly memorize all known variations and that sub-optimal moves (measured in hundredths of a centipawn) would be played to avoid known lines.
Remember: "solving" involves a series of best responses leading to an inevitable conclusion, but we already know that humans already play suboptimal lines to create imbalances and manufacture practical winning chances. In such a context, the effect on human play is negligible.
#125
That is relevant. Each position is either a draw, a win, or a loss, regardless of how that position was reached. Of course there is an astronomical number of ways to reach the same position, but that exactly is the shortcut to look only at about 10^19 positions instead of 10^120 games.
There is no need for a position evaluation algorithm: the trick is to calculate until the endgame table base is hit and then look up the exact evaluation.
@optimissed - the question wasn't whether or not it would be solved, but rather if it were solved, would it affect human play. I believe that it won't because humans can't possibly memorize all known variations and that sub-optimal moves (measured in hundredths of a centipawn) would be played to avoid known lines.
Remember: "solving" involves a series of best responses leading to an inevitable conclusion, but we already know that humans already play suboptimal lines to create imbalances and manufacture practical winning chances. In such a context, the effect on human play is negligible.
Which I answered, very clearly, giving reasons which involve how and if chess could be solved. Since you and I seem in complete agreement, why question if I "remember" something?
hahaha "the trick" ... hahahaha. Good one. That's all we have to do. Nepo can't even calculate that his bishop will be trapped and you're talking about memorizing millions of lines. Ridiculous.
#131
It is the computers that calculate until they hit the table base, not the human assistants.
Once chess is thus solved, humans will be unable to memorize the full solution. As said before: they miss in 7 men endgames, so they will miss even more in 26 men middle games.
#125
That is relevant. Each position is either a draw, a win, or a loss, regardless of how that position was reached. Of course there is an astronomical number of ways to reach the same position, but that exactly is the shortcut to look only at about 10^19 positions instead of 10^120 games.
There is no need for a position evaluation algorithm: the trick is to calculate until the endgame table base is hit and then look up the exact evaluation.
I get your point but there seems to be a problem. Most GMs and analysts have reached the conclusion that chess is a draw from the initial position, so now, all we have is 10 ^19 positions that have to be assessed. However, if we believe we can't assess the starting position as a draw, how can we therefore assess each of the 10 ^19 positions as draws or wins? My point is that there's no reason why we should be able to, any more than we can or cannot assess the initial position. So the point about permutations does have relevance, because the logical conclusion is that chess would need to be exactly solved by following each and every line to its conclusion, which is apparently completely impossible, even for computers of the future.
Therefore an algorithmic method is needed.
Exactly. The effects of computers solving chess will be negligible in human play, even if it were theoretically possible.
#131
It is the computers that calculate until they hit the table base, not the human assistants.
Once chess is thus solved, humans will be unable to memorize the full solution. As said before: they miss in 7 men endgames, so they will miss even more in 26 men middle games.
Yes but the fact of the table-base means that this is still impossible because, for the table-base to exist, the calculations for it are necessarily very simplistic.
I think the end of chess will not come when chess is solved, but when humans start getting computer implants in their brains. That is likely to happen MUCH sooner than the solving of chess.
Computer chess will die. It will come to the point that all latest chess engines cannot beat each other but all draws. But human vs human it will never die.
I think the end of chess will not come when chess is solved, but when humans start getting computer implants in their brains. That is likely to happen MUCH sooner than the solving of chess.
I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig. I wonder what such implants would be supposed to do and what would be the point of them. I doubt any very intelligent person would agree to it, either.
Solved or not, the number of possible chess games is estimated to be about 12^120 which is FAR greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe. The tip of your little finger contains trillions of atoms, way more games than anyone would ever play in their life. And just compare the tip of your finger to your surroundings the next time you go outside. The tip of your finger is an absolutely minute part of Earth and Earth is an absolutely minute part of the universe. Worrying about chess being exhausted by humans is laughable.
And even so WHY DOES IT MATTER IN THE FIRST PLACE IF CHESS IS SOLVED? Do you expect people to cheat by memorizing all the correct moves? It just seems to be about mystique. If chess is solved it loses some mystique, becomes less cool it seems to some. It looks like some people are insecure about playing a game that has become uncool.