Will computers ever solve chess?

    The post was addressed to Miao. I’m not gonna comment on your retarded examples of four moves into the Ruy Lopez as ‘perfect, because they don’t change the theoretical result’, which you don’t know—one—and which you don’t know how it ends in—two. It could end in anything, with best play, you wouldn’t know.

    Same retarded logic. It’s not the chess knowledge, which is way bigger than your memory could contain—like I said, you’re a joke—it’s how you interpret it.

  Yes, I saw this long ago. But you could play against anybody you choose, and lose every single time if you don’t listen to its instant suggestions—which it already calculated it leads to a draw—as long as the opponent does listen to the same super-engine.

  It’s like playing against the old Fritz and listen to its comments, only much more precise: the super-engine would say: ‘if you do that you will lose in x moves, with best play.’ 

  And no matter what you do, it will always tell you what the best move is, and that by using another move you will lose in y moves. And it will show you, every single time. Hard to argue with that.

  Haha, it’s ok, cat got your meow-meow tongue!

  Best moves from the very beginning, that was the point being discussed. No one knows what they are, so if you do, please go ahead, show us a ‘perfect game’.

  You have no way of knowing. Again, it may be only one move that leads to a draw with best play, while all the rest lose, with best play. The problem is that you base your conclusion on actual theory/present knowledge to make statements—which may be invalidated, most of it, when chess will be solved. Just because it won’t happen during your lifetime, doesn’t mean you can jump to conclusions and present a final result as a fact.

  Tough luck, you will never find out. But guessing will not change the fact that no one of this generation will ever find out. Live with it!

  Meow here doesn’t quite understand the difference between a stupid game from actual practice and a perfect game. 

  Hahaha! In the light of Vick’s post—above—this doesn’t seem like a clear evidence that chess is a draw. Statistics meaning nothing when it comes to perfect games.

  The opinion polls and sociologists are way beside the point, so you are not saying anything there.

  One last thing: are you a mathematician? Or are you a human being who is good at math? Given the fact that you used a capital m, coupled with the fact that you think in terms of what mathmatecians do or not do—indicating identification with a pattern and a mix-up between who you are and what you do, probably you don’t see the distinction.

[COMMENT DELETED]

 Just a duplicate. The iPad keeps guessing the wrong words...

I know that for most positions there are several best moves. 

This is a fact.

That YOU do not know this is simply because you do not understand something very basic about chess.

The point is not how many best moves there are. The point is that you don’t know what they are, even if there are only two or three, you don’t know what they are, each time, for both sides, from beginning to end. Until you get to the end, you don’t know.

 Better now, easier to grasp?

Correct. And no human or chess engine knows how to either.

  Again, read Vick’s post to you. You didn’t get it yet. Present and past games, on one hand, and perfect games, on another hand, are two very distinct things. 

 Do not analyze the present games and try to formulate conclusions about perfect games. There is no correlation.

It is meaningless to present random positions from present games, which are not perfect, and so contain many imperfect moves, in order to arrive at conclusions about best moves, which happen in perfect games, from the beginning, not after a rather long sequence of imperfect moves. By then, it is meaningless to look for perfect moves. In other words, it is too late. As Vick noted, those positions may never occur in a perfect game. That’s why we said they are meaningless.

 As for being ‘a Mathematician’ with a capital ‘m’, you didn’t get the distinction and the effects of mixing up who you are with what you do. They didn’t teach you that in math, so as a human being you are clueless. You didn’t investigate on your own—at least take consolation in the fact that most did not, either. That doesn’t make it ok, but it is what it is: we are not trying to change anybody.

  Meow, you don’t get what is being said to you, so your replies are meaningless so far. Take your time and make sure you understand what is being said to you, not just by me—you are showing a misunderstanding in essence, you miss the crux of what somebody is trying to convey to you. So take your time.

 By the way, identifying yourself with a group of people who call themselves ‘atheists’, doesn’t mean you are free from belief. The atheist is also a believer—he believes god doesn’t exist. Both groups don’t know for sure, so they believe. Positive or negative, it’s still a belief. Both don’t know but they don’t stop there, they believe. Why can’t they stop there? Too complicated to go into this with you.

  Also, both groups harbor both beliefs—it’s just that one is more predominant than the other, so they choose different names for the essentially same mental makeup.

  But don’t sweat this last part, it’s rather complex, and requires an alertness which you don’t display, at the moment.

  Character? You mean a bunch of masks of values? The shoulds and should nots of the authority? Communist or otherwise. It’s fake dear, but you can only find that out if you really discover who you are. Then there is no authority in the field of life and all the masks will fall. What will be left of you then? Find out, discover for yourself.

  Now, if you don’t change the reference system, from your perspective, the beginning moves of a chess game cannot be proven to be perfect. From your perspective, you don’t know and so to present a random position that may never occur in a perfect game proves nothing at all. It’s the third time this is being said to you, but still no trace of understanding.

  As for ‘Mathematician’ , you missed the essence: you base your behavior on imitating patterns: mathematicians do this, but not that, they act that way, and so do you, imitating the pattern.

There are some posters who do not have a clue about chess and also are quite disengenuous.

These posters who do not have a clue about chess love to try to belittle masters and grandmasters. 

Apparently some, due to the society they grew up in, are constantly looking for peer approval. What do they say, am I alone in this?

 I never gauge my responses to please a certain group of people or a person. I lay out the facts and then...you do what you want with them. Facts don’t need anyone’s approval.

 Again, your work in math doesn’t absolve you of not being a logical person in life. Two different things.

 Lastly, you want to help out your family? Start with yourself. You are not free of suffering, and so fundamentally you don’t know what help is. You can give them a hand now and then, but you are clueless when it comes to getting hurt, for instance.

 Not wanting to reveal much about myself—not hear to brag, chess-wise—but it is a fact that GMs don’t know anything about perfect moves, or rather how to spot them

 The best anyone can do during a game is to find the best move, given the time constraints. At home, that time limit increases and maybe better moves, lines and refutations are found. But that is garbage, compared to the amount of moves they are missing, from move one. For the purposes of this discussion, GMs’opinions are meaningless. 

 This is not a put-down, but a fact, again, for the purposes of this discussion.

Listen, meow-meow, you’re getting ahead of yourself. I never said mathematicians are imitators; you are. Not as a mathematician, but as a human being, when you say, ‘as a mathematician, we don’t do this or that..’ Your behavior as a human being, in daily life, follows the patterns of other mathematicians, also in daily life. You are imitating their patterns in daily life, not in math. Do you understand the difference? It doesn’t look like it.

What is behind my mask? If you said ‘emptiness’, and you did, then you nailed it. 

 Accomplishments? Really a meaningless subject, but what do you think is the biggest accomplishment in life? For anyone? 

  You don’t seem that bright, so I’ll just tell you; the biggest accomplishment in life is not to think in terms of accomplishments. 

  Keep learning, grasshopper.

 By the way, you didn’t need to block me, since I didn’t send you any messages, nor was I planning on doing that. I don’t approach others, unless they approach me first and want to talk. So you performed another meaningless action. Also, in this country criticizing people doesn’t make one ‘bad’ for doing that. The Chinese propaganda hasn’t reached us yet, and hopefully never will.