will chess ever die out once its fully solved?

hi, just Googled it and all it seems to be is a brain controlled computer. That's all very well because it should be possible to do that. However, developing an interface that allows the computer output to be sensed by the brain in intelligible form is a different matter, especially as neuroscientists don't know how the brain works. I probably know more about it than they do ... all they seem to do is correlate electrical activity with thought-types. So I wouldn't hold out your hopes. Anyway, you wouldn't need it. You always seemed very intelligent to me.

why are we worrying? at the end of the day, chess is fun.

#132

"Most GMs and analysts have reached the conclusion that chess is a draw from the initial position" ++ That is correct. So proving chess = proving that for each reasonable white move ther exists at least 1 black move that holds the draw.
"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?" ++ The engine calculates position after position until it hits the 7 men endgame table base to verify it is a draw.
"we can or cannot assess the initial position." ++ The proof that the initial position is a draw follows after the 5 years of computer calculations.
"permutations does have relevance" ++ No, it is irrelevant by which transposition a position is reached.

"chess would need to be exactly solved by following each and every line to its conclusion"
++ No, that would be strongly solved, which indeed is neither possible nor necessary. Checkers was also weakly solved.

#142
That is the essence of a game. Tennis is also a draw if you can just return each ball over the net and within the court. If both players do that, it goes on forever without any point scored. The essence is that people make mistakes.

Chess is already weakly solved.

ty. He did say one of the reasons for doing this is to make people more intelligent. That, and he also has said it will slow the possibility of AI taking over. Seems like it's getting very science fictiony very fast. Plus they say a monkey was able to play Pong using just his brain waves. 

Who knows, maybe the "chess is a sport" people will start having second computer generated thoughts about that.

That's assuming that the assumption you make is correct. The assumption is that chess can be definitely solved but if you took part in Ponz's thread, you would have seen discussions regarding that. I don't think that saying "the engines calculate until they reach a 7-man table-base position" really works.

Isn't that exactly like a Phoenician ship's captain saying that "we should be able to sail round the World because all we have to do is to keep going until we see the harbour lights of Gubla once more"?

Ha!

You know, if they want to slow AI taking over, there are ways that people can train their brains when they're young, to genius level and beyond. The brain is capable of so much more than these AI scientists understand.

Even I managed to do it when I was nine or ten. Train my brain, that is. I experienced about a year of enhanced ability due to a few simple tricks I developed. If I could do that with no experience or instruction when I was nine, one wonders why these people are persisting in going in the wrong direction.

I mean most trivially, a neural link could provide access to a tablebase and opening book. Those don't require any actual thinking. It could also be hooked up to Stockfish. I mean how do you even control that in games?

It seems to me that worrying about chess being solved in the next zillion years is much less worrisome to the health of the game.

Completely right my dear Nikki, but getting an interfacial feedback to the brain's another matter.

     A century ago Capablanca said that chess would soon die out as the top players all understood exactly how to play. He invented a variant that failed to supplant the regular game.

     Fifty years ago Fischer said that chess would soon die out as the best players had memorized all the best lines and there was no more progress to be made. He invented a variant that failed to supplant the regular game.

     Now many people are predicting that chess will soon die out as computers will solve the game and everyone will lose interest. Nonsense. Those who enjoy chess will continue to play, as any "solution" will be impractical for 99.9999% of players to utilize.

If chess is solved the point where there's a single forced winning line found (or a few forced winning lines) ... then it might certainly ruin chess - as countless players will choose to play only those lines.

But if chess is solved to confirm what many players already believe - that it's a draw with perfect play from both sides, and that there are countless ways to reach those draws - then it probably will change nothing ...

     Even if the forced winning lines are discovered, all the player on the theoretically losing side need do is vary from the prescribed moves to get the supposed winner out of his prep and make it a game where both players need to think up their own moves.

@tygxc is a dumba$$. He reminds me of someone like kindaspongey, who is incapable of posting any opinions of his own, just quotes that are barely relevant.

Entirely incorrect.

Losing chess is weakly solved beginning with 1.e3

Although “weakly solved” can offer several definitions- the mathematical requirements of perfect play does not come close to any solution for standard chess.

Well, there are no forced winning lines. That much we know.

So you saying it was incorrect is a bit weird? Or incorrect?

I agree with that.

My main point was that, if a winning line were found, it would encourage a lot of players to focus exclusively on that line ... and the opening variety that we currently enjoy would suffer a lot, as a result.

(If 1.g3 were found to be a win, for example ... then it's easy to imagine that 19 out of every 20 games would open with 1.g3 from there on out ... which would become somewhat boring, rather quickly ...)