Forums

Will computers ever solve chess?

Sort:
troy7915

 I tried to tell that to a lower-rated player in another forum, but to no avail: he insisted that despite one’s confidence the position over the board doesn’t care about one feeling confident. As if the game was played by two robots...

  He only reluctantly backed off when I used Kasparov example, who admitted that when he was insecure, his playing ability diminished: at that point, he would apply the principle ‘fake it ‘till you make it’: he would begin to feel he was invincible. Soon enough, his playing style and the actual game would tourn around in his favor.

  He is going to write a book on mental toughness, although this is no secret: he long considered it to be one of the most important features of his success.

 

  Even though, he considered Fischer to be tougher than him!! Precisely because he would not accept playing for a draw just because it was enough to win a tournament , something Kaslparov admitted doing many a time.

troy7915

However, when it comes to sports in general, even in chess for that matter, there is something quite opposite to confidence that all those who succeeded had, including Kasparov and Fscher.

 

  In any domain, not just sports, to make it all the way to the top, there is something quite surprisingly different than confidence that everybody who went all the way had. That’s because there is always opposition, and so confidence at some point will be shaken. At that point, this thing kicks in.

 

 But, while this gives one success, as a human being he will be destroyed, consumed by its negative effects, which explains the failures in relationships of celebrities.

ponz111

i could guess, but i will bite--what is it?

troy7915

No, please, guess first.

ponz111

Willingness to find your mistakes [or weakenesses or shortcomings] and to improve from this?

troy7915

Well, yeah, that is obvious if you look at both Fischer and Kasparov, and also other great athletes and their commentaries, and even non-athletes for that matter, at the highest levels in their respective fields.

 

 But no, that couldn’t be what I had in mind once I added that it destroys them as human beings, which honesty never does. Because that comes down to this: to be brutally honest with yourself, and the best of the best share this quality of not minding doing it in public. They lack the most popular negative feature of being ashamed of their mistakes. On the contrary, they welcome mistakes, as Michael Jordan once similarly put it.

 I know very well this, because for ten years I worked solely at improving one physical skill. Surrounding that specific skill others were developed, with new discoveries added all the time. And so I know from direct experience that errors are the best teacher we have. At least in a physical skill, no human can beat the muscle feel. And no human can show you the perfect muscle feel—the best is learning from errors, in relation to what one wants to accomplish through those skills.

 

  But no, there is something else, which goes against confidence, in a wider field.

ponz111

overconfidence but that is not the opposite of confidence.

troy7915
ponz111 wrote:

overconfidence but that is not the opposite of confidence.

 

  Correct. What IS the opposite of confidence?

ponz111

opposite of confidence includes doubt and/or distrust and/or fear.

DiogenesDue
s23bog wrote:

A slightly better king position is a perceived advantage.  It does not mean it is a winning advantage.  Often, going for the win in a drawn position equates to playing for a loss.

Sure, but how often is having the opposition, which is the slightest of "king position" advantages (a half move), entirely decisive?

Billkingplayschess
s23bog wrote:

Often enough.  But more commonly, it is not because there is a win that I decline draws, but simply to see if my opponent will make a mistake.  Then ... I go and make a mistake or two.

I made a mistake here, but fortunately my opponent ended up making more.  https://www.chess.com/live/game/2766928049

 

HalmaDori

happy.png

luckbird

what does solve mean

like the best moves?

lfPatriotGames
s23bog wrote:

"Solve" means determine if the game is a forced win for either side, or a draw, with best play.

Wouldn't the terms "solve" and "best play" be the same thing? It seems like it's unnecessary to say solve means figuring out the game with best play because there is no other way to figure it out. It seems unlikely chess will be solved with ordinary play, good play, or even great play. The moment best play ever happens for an entire game, chess will be solved at that same moment.

DiogenesDue

"Solve" is clearly defined result.  Read about it on Wikipedia under "solved games".  Google is your friend.

luckbird

elementary my dear

lfPatriotGames
btickler wrote:

"Solve" is clearly defined result.  Read about it on Wikipedia under "solved games".  Google is your friend.

I totally agree. solved is a definite result. I guess I dont see the point in saying "solve with best play" since I dont think there is any other way to solve a complete game of chess. It seems redundant to me. Starting from the beginning of the game I dont think chess can be solved with poor play, average play, good play, or even great play. I think the best, and only the best, move each turn is the only way it will ever be solved.

troy7915
s23bog wrote:
troy7915 escribió:
ponz111 wrote:

overconfidence but that is not the opposite of confidence.

 

  Correct. What IS the opposite of confidence?

Insecurity.

 

  Correct.

ponz111
lfPatriotGames wrote:
s23bog wrote:

"Solve" means determine if the game is a forced win for either side, or a draw, with best play.

Wouldn't the terms "solve" and "best play" be the same thing? It seems like it's unnecessary to say solve means figuring out the game with best play because there is no other way to figure it out. It seems unlikely chess will be solved with ordinary play, good play, or even great play. The moment best play ever happens for an entire game, chess will be solved at that same moment.

 

If what you say is correct--then chess has already been "solved".

lfPatriotGames
ponz111 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
s23bog wrote:

"Solve" means determine if the game is a forced win for either side, or a draw, with best play.

Wouldn't the terms "solve" and "best play" be the same thing? It seems like it's unnecessary to say solve means figuring out the game with best play because there is no other way to figure it out. It seems unlikely chess will be solved with ordinary play, good play, or even great play. The moment best play ever happens for an entire game, chess will be solved at that same moment.

 

If what you say is correct--then chess has already been "solved".

If chess has already been solved then "best play" has already happened. I dont see how thats possible since all the time computers and people come up with new and better ideas about how to play chess. What we think is "best play" usually gets improved on a few years later. It seems like both computers and people are getting better. Which to me means best play hasn't happened yet. Which means chess hasn't been solved yet. I just think they will both happen simultaneously, if they ever happen at all.