Well, there are no forced winning lines. That much we know.
True.
Judging by the way things seem to be going with engines, I'd say that every major opening leads to a draw ... and there are countless different ways to accomplish it, too.
I'm betting that a hypothetical 32-piece tablebase would likely just demonstrate the most precise ways to draw, via each opening variation ...
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.
Chess is already deemed unsporting by most of its own community and not popular enough for most professional players to make a living with it. Depends on your definition of dying out but I would argue there will be alot less people playing. Even if just based on perception alone. Capablanca, Fischer, or more recently Wesley So and HIkaru would be the people who would know best imo.
And I find it interesting everyone admits the perfect game is a draw but we still play chess because humans make mistakes, because many of the same people claim that classical is a better "quality" chess time control because its the most "accurate". Quite the contradiction if you ask me.
Classical will die out before anything else does imo.
If Capablanca and Fischer were "the people who would know best" as you claim, then chess (at least the classical chess you endlessly belittle) would be dead by now. They both predicted the imminent death of chess as it was then but still continues to be. They were WRONG. There are many millions more chess players today than there were in their days. If Hikaru and So are as perspicacious as them their opinions are just as worthless.
If you think "everyone admits that the perfect game is a draw" you are completely ignorant. You can find forums here on chess.com--some of which went on for years--where many, many people argued against that assertion as well as disputed the nature of "perfect game" and the possibility of achieving that perfection.
Did they give a time frame when they predicted it will die? Wesley So said in 80 years. If it doesn't happen in 80 years we can say he was wrong. But Fischer and Capablanca have yet to be proven wrong. Chess has existed for a long time, but it was nothing like the game we know of today. Every one of these players, including So, have suggested that in order for chess to survive it must continue to evolve and change with the times. If it indeed dies it will be because of people stubbornly holding on to old outdated traditions.
Yes, Fischer and Capablanca were of the opinion that their generation had come to a complete understanding of chess and the game needed to change immediately or the next generation wouldn't bother to keep playing. Look up the meaning of "imminent". The point is that elite players regularly predict chess is finished, probably because they and some of their peers feel they have mastered every possibility. Then new players come along and beat them and their predictions prove ephemeral.
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.
Chess is already deemed unsporting by most of its own community and not popular enough for most professional players to make a living with it. Depends on your definition of dying out but I would argue there will be alot less people playing. Even if just based on perception alone. Capablanca, Fischer, or more recently Wesley So and HIkaru would be the people who would know best imo.
And I find it interesting everyone admits the perfect game is a draw but we still play chess because humans make mistakes, because many of the same people claim that classical is a better "quality" chess time control because its the most "accurate". Quite the contradiction if you ask me.
Classical will die out before anything else does imo.
Your opinion is wrong. Faster forms are based on slower forms and without the "classical form", faster forms wouldn't exist.
Anyhow, cherry-picking the very few players whom you agree with as "those who know best" is likely to be the opposite of the truth, given your hit rate with correct opinions.
So muscle memory is just a "misnomer" but saying these guys have a photographic memory is completely impossible? Sounds like trolling over semantics lol. I don't know how else you would describe the memory and spatial vision these players have. Its on another level and its how someone like magnus can see and play through 10,000 games in his mind. Call it whatever words you want to describe it if helps you sleep at night and stops you from trying to deflect from the argument you are now conceding.
Magnus's phenomenal memory is a result of expert knowledge, coming from tens of thousands of hours of playing chess. If you gave him a randomly assigned position that could never occur in a game and asked him to memorise it then he would be just as hopeless as an ordinary non-chess player. No top GMs are different in this regard, many of them have normal brains that they have trained over decades and certainly none of them have photographic or eidetic memories.
Right, so it has nothing to do with any natural gifts or talent. Just hard work and we can all be like him. This is the lie you tell yourself, these the are the false expectations you give others.
And your example is flawed logic, if its something that can't happen in a game he wouldn't have it as past experience or studied knowledge. You are proving my point that not all moves are needed to be memorized. And its complete nonsense to say if it was theoretically possible that for some mysterious reason he would not be able to memorize it. You are literally ignoring the point of the thread and not speaking logically and totally contradicting yourself. Which is the effect that chess has on your brain imo.
You sound like you hate chess to be honest with these comments by insulting people for the fact that they play chess, on a chess website. Where's the logic in that? You're here too man, even if you're not above a rating of 600. To be honest, chess is unlikely to be "solved" in any of our lifespans, and probably quite far after that. If chess has a period of reduced viewership and interest, and by that I mean an extreme amount, then I doubt it's going to be because everything about chess has been solved.
so you are a critic who goes around judging things which makes long arguments everytime
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
Blitz and bullet and variants
@coolout - the vast majority of the games played have a novelty by move 15. You're telling me that humans can memorize millions of permutations? That's just preposterous. Like I half-jokingly said before, Nepo can't even calculate that his bishop will be trapped, and we're talking about forced wins? Absolutely 100% preposterous.
Coolout, are you one of those people who hang out in their mom's basement being a troll on the internet? Cuz it sure sounds like you are.
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
Tell that to these super gms. especially Magnus. I think you underestimate the human mind. And overestimate just how many lines they have to memorize. What changes things is the time control. Things become less accurate under pressure like when they have less time to think and that is the future. It already is its just a matter of time. Daniel Naroditzky recently said he watched the evolution of online chess and 5 minute blitz is now the equivalent of classical online lmao. Why do you think all these super gm's prefer to play bullet? Do you really believe its because they don't have time to play long games or are avoiding cheaters? lol
I don't think you're really comprehending the argument. Even if magnus had 100x the memory of the average person, which he really doesn't, he wouldn't be able to memorize that. Say every move had 4 different lines that the opponent could respond with that you would have to memorize. After a few moves, that's already tens of thousands of moves a person has to remember. What about the likelihood that there are MORE than 4 viable responses? Magnus remembers all that because, yes, he has an exceptional memory, but also it has been burned into his mind from years and years of playing chess, and I doubt he remembers more than half those games with incredible clarity. Even with 4 responses per move, on move 5 (both players have had 10 turns) there is roughly a million. Move ten? Trillions, quadrillions. Think about what you're saying. And anyways, you can't force a win with the advantage white has at the beginning, so its pointless anyways.
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
I agree with you that it's impractical - and virtually impossible to memorize to any helpful degree (except, perhaps, for the most studious of players).
But my point is that, if a forced win were found, the difficulty of memorizing such a line would not stop people from trying to mimic it.
And if the first few moves were unique (1.b3 and 2.f4 for a random example, just for discussion's sake), we would likely see a large majority of games open with those two moves, because of it ... to the point where it would become numbingly repetitive.
But I hope it never comes to that. And I suspect it never will ...
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
Tell that to these super gms. especially Magnus. I think you underestimate the human mind. And overestimate just how many lines they have to memorize. What changes things is the time control. Things become less accurate under pressure like when they have less time to think and that is the future. It already is its just a matter of time. Daniel Naroditzky recently said he watched the evolution of online chess and 5 minute blitz is now the equivalent of classical online lmao. Why do you think all these super gm's prefer to play bullet? Do you really believe its because they don't have time to play long games or are avoiding cheaters? lol
I don't think you're really comprehending the argument. Even if magnus had 100x the memory of the average person, which he really doesn't, he wouldn't be able to memorize that. Say every move had 4 different lines that the opponent could respond with that you would have to memorize. After a few moves, that's already tens of thousands of moves a person has to remember. What about the likelihood that there are MORE than 4 viable responses? Magnus remembers all that because, yes, he has an exceptional memory, but also it has been burned into his mind from years and years of playing chess, and I doubt he remembers more than half those games with incredible clarity. Even with 4 responses per move, there is roughly a million. Move ten? Trillions, quadrillions. Think about what you're saying. And anyways, you can't force a win with the advantage white has at the beginning, so its pointless anyways.
My friend you are not comprehending that he only has to prep against his opponent. And it is rare that professional chess players will make risky "creative" moves. He only has to memorize the variations it is most likely his opponent will play. period. Magnus has been quoted as saying he has 10,000 games memorized in his mind that he can recite on que. The reason these chess players memorize these historic games is because that is usually what is played.
Hikaru showed up at my favorite youtube chess channel called Coffee Chess last month. In one game he is beating this kid and someone in the crowd was going wow look at him he's so careful not taking any chances. HIkaru looked at him and said
its really all just theory, thats all it is" . He said "we don't like to admit that to ourselves but that is the truth." Then after the match he told the kid exactly what historic game he should study because he said it played out almost exactly as their game had. They had the exact positions he told the kid and if he studies that game he will know the line to play.
So you think that the current state of chess proves that a hundred years from now, if chess is solved, everyone will have it down to memory? It's not about "risky creative moves", if you read correctly. In most positions, theres probably like 4-5 moves that don't have much difference in terms of advantage loss/gain from the best move. You're not going to know all those moves.
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
Tell that to these super gms. especially Magnus. I think you underestimate the human mind. And overestimate just how many lines they have to memorize. What changes things is the time control. Things become less accurate under pressure like when they have less time to think and that is the future. It already is its just a matter of time. Daniel Naroditzky recently said he watched the evolution of online chess and 5 minute blitz is now the equivalent of classical online lmao. Why do you think all these super gm's prefer to play bullet? Do you really believe its because they don't have time to play long games or are avoiding cheaters? lol
I don't think you're really comprehending the argument. Even if magnus had 100x the memory of the average person, which he really doesn't, he wouldn't be able to memorize that. Say every move had 4 different lines that the opponent could respond with that you would have to memorize. After a few moves, that's already tens of thousands of moves a person has to remember. What about the likelihood that there are MORE than 4 viable responses? Magnus remembers all that because, yes, he has an exceptional memory, but also it has been burned into his mind from years and years of playing chess, and I doubt he remembers more than half those games with incredible clarity. Even with 4 responses per move, there is roughly a million. Move ten? Trillions, quadrillions. Think about what you're saying. And anyways, you can't force a win with the advantage white has at the beginning, so its pointless anyways.
My friend you are not comprehending that he only has to prep against his opponent. And it is rare that professional chess players will make risky "creative" moves. He only has to memorize the variations it is most likely his opponent will play. period. Magnus has been quoted as saying he has 10,000 games memorized in his mind that he can recite on que. The reason these chess players memorize these historic games is because that is usually what is played.
Hikaru showed up at my favorite youtube chess channel called Coffee Chess last month. In one game he is beating this kid and someone in the crowd was going wow look at him he's so careful not taking any chances. HIkaru looked at him and said
its really all just theory, thats all it is" . He said "we don't like to admit that to ourselves but that is the truth." Then after the match he told the kid exactly what historic game he should study because he said it played out almost exactly as their game had. They had the exact positions he told the kid and if he studies that game he will know the line to play.
So you think that the current state of chess proves that a hundred years from now, if chess is solved, everyone will have it down to memory? It's not about "risky creative moves", if you read correctly. In most positions, theres probably like 4-5 moves that don't have much difference in terms of advantage loss/gain from the best move. You're not going to know all those moves.
And also
Key words
Historical game!
It's a famous game, and the opponent made the same mistakes, likely because they were natural moves playing speed chess. That's no doubt a factor to take into account.
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
Tell that to these super gms. especially Magnus. I think you underestimate the human mind. And overestimate just how many lines they have to memorize. What changes things is the time control. Things become less accurate under pressure like when they have less time to think and that is the future. It already is its just a matter of time. Daniel Naroditzky recently said he watched the evolution of online chess and 5 minute blitz is now the equivalent of classical online lmao. Why do you think all these super gm's prefer to play bullet? Do you really believe its because they don't have time to play long games or are avoiding cheaters? lol
I don't think you're really comprehending the argument. Even if magnus had 100x the memory of the average person, which he really doesn't, he wouldn't be able to memorize that. Say every move had 4 different lines that the opponent could respond with that you would have to memorize. After a few moves, that's already tens of thousands of moves a person has to remember. What about the likelihood that there are MORE than 4 viable responses? Magnus remembers all that because, yes, he has an exceptional memory, but also it has been burned into his mind from years and years of playing chess, and I doubt he remembers more than half those games with incredible clarity. Even with 4 responses per move, there is roughly a million. Move ten? Trillions, quadrillions. Think about what you're saying. And anyways, you can't force a win with the advantage white has at the beginning, so its pointless anyways.
My friend you are not comprehending that he only has to prep against his opponent. And it is rare that professional chess players will make risky "creative" moves. He only has to memorize the variations it is most likely his opponent will play. period. Magnus has been quoted as saying he has 10,000 games memorized in his mind that he can recite on que. The reason these chess players memorize these historic games is because that is usually what is played.
Hikaru showed up at my favorite youtube chess channel called Coffee Chess last month. In one game he is beating this kid and someone in the crowd was going wow look at him he's so careful not taking any chances. HIkaru looked at him and said
its really all just theory, thats all it is" . He said "we don't like to admit that to ourselves but that is the truth." Then after the match he told the kid exactly what historic game he should study because he said it played out almost exactly as their game had. They had the exact positions he told the kid and if he studies that game he will know the line to play.
So you think that the current state of chess proves that a hundred years from now, if chess is solved, everyone will have it down to memory? It's not about "risky creative moves", if you read correctly. In most positions, theres probably like 4-5 moves that don't have much difference in terms of advantage loss/gain from the best move. You're not going to know all those moves.
I'm saying it will be less and less sporting and entertaining and just the perception of everyone playing based on theory and politics will cause it to die off more then it already has in the past 100 years. Chess has had many transformations and rule changes in its history. I think before chess totally dies off it will transform again. And Why do you keep talking about all the possible moves that noone will ever play? Are you not reading my posts?
Not all the possible moves no one will every play. Have you EVER taken a look at a chess engine? 20 moves deep and there are still like 6 moves that get an almost identical advantage for one side or the other. You can memorize the best moves, but they're no use when the opponent plays something completely sound that you didn't memorize. The best move isn't the only good move. Chess may die off, but there will still be interesting games.
@stil1 - a forced win between humans is impossible. you simply can't force a player to play into a line. "solved" as you imagine it, would mean a series of best possible responses by each side would lead one side to win. But seriously, how impractical is that? Somewhere along that line there will be dozens or possibly hundreds of moves that aren't "best" by maybe hundredths of a centipawn. Humans simply can't prep-out every permutation. In practical terms, for human play, it can't be solved. There are just too many variations for the human mind to memorize.
Tell that to these super gms. especially Magnus. I think you underestimate the human mind. And overestimate just how many lines they have to memorize. What changes things is the time control. Things become less accurate under pressure like when they have less time to think and that is the future. It already is its just a matter of time. Daniel Naroditzky recently said he watched the evolution of online chess and 5 minute blitz is now the equivalent of classical online lmao. Why do you think all these super gm's prefer to play bullet? Do you really believe its because they don't have time to play long games or are avoiding cheaters? lol
I don't think you're really comprehending the argument. Even if magnus had 100x the memory of the average person, which he really doesn't, he wouldn't be able to memorize that. Say every move had 4 different lines that the opponent could respond with that you would have to memorize. After a few moves, that's already tens of thousands of moves a person has to remember. What about the likelihood that there are MORE than 4 viable responses? Magnus remembers all that because, yes, he has an exceptional memory, but also it has been burned into his mind from years and years of playing chess, and I doubt he remembers more than half those games with incredible clarity. Even with 4 responses per move, there is roughly a million. Move ten? Trillions, quadrillions. Think about what you're saying. And anyways, you can't force a win with the advantage white has at the beginning, so its pointless anyways.
My friend you are not comprehending that he only has to prep against his opponent. And it is rare that professional chess players will make risky "creative" moves. He only has to memorize the variations it is most likely his opponent will play. period. Magnus has been quoted as saying he has 10,000 games memorized in his mind that he can recite on que. The reason these chess players memorize these historic games is because that is usually what is played.
Hikaru showed up at my favorite youtube chess channel called Coffee Chess last month. In one game he is beating this kid and someone in the crowd was going wow look at him he's so careful not taking any chances. HIkaru looked at him and said
its really all just theory, thats all it is" . He said "we don't like to admit that to ourselves but that is the truth." Then after the match he told the kid exactly what historic game he should study because he said it played out almost exactly as their game had. They had the exact positions he told the kid and if he studies that game he will know the line to play.
So you think that the current state of chess proves that a hundred years from now, if chess is solved, everyone will have it down to memory? It's not about "risky creative moves", if you read correctly. In most positions, theres probably like 4-5 moves that don't have much difference in terms of advantage loss/gain from the best move. You're not going to know all those moves.
I'm saying it will be less and less sporting and entertaining and just the perception of everyone playing based on theory and politics will cause it to die off more then it already has in the past 100 years. Chess has had many transformations and rule changes in its history. I think before chess totally dies off it will transform again. And Why do you keep talking about all the possible moves that noone will ever play? Are you not reading my posts?
Not all the possible moves no one will every play. Have you EVER taken a look at a chess engine? 20 moves deep and there are still like 6 moves that get an almost identical advantage for one side or the other. You can memorize the best moves, but they're no use when the opponent plays something completely sound that you didn't memorize. The best move isn't the only good move. Chess may die off, but there will still be interesting games.
When i use the "learn your mistakes" option on stockfish there is literally only one best move. Again, a professional is not going to risk making moves that are considered less then best. What tehse guys do is try to make moves that their opponent hopefully did not prep for. Doesn't mean they are coming up with anything never done before, which happens but is very rare.
Are you not hearing correctly? A risk means that there's a response that is bad for you. AS I SAID
There may only be one best move, but there are plenty of moves that give almost an identical advatange. + 0.3 and +0.26 isn't a difference. And, by the way, did you not just contradict yourself? "Super GMS wouldn't play moves they know aren't best" "Super GMs play moves that aren't best to try and trip up their opponent"
But my point is that, if a forced win were found, the difficulty of memorizing such a line . . .
What do you mean a line?
We've already solved chess for 7 men. Feel free to look at any winning endgame that has one or more of the following conditions (note the opening position has all 3):
1) Material is equal in both the number of type of piece
2) Even if given 2 moves in a row, neither player can make a concrete threat
3) The pawn structure is symmetrical and neither player has a piece superiority on either flank.
Under these conditions there is no winning line. The structure of the win will be akin to every legal move wins on every turn for the whole solution.
Below is an example of a winning position that satisfies all 3:
-
#80
Chess can be solved. It takes 5 years on present cloud computers
That's a ridiculous statement.
@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.
Yes, it wasn't a correct claim but I enjoy talking to both of them because they raise interesting points.