so lets say computers solve chess. then what ?
Then we would need to be very skeptical that this has been done as probably the proof that this has been done would take many lifetimes to read.
But, people like me would say: "I told you it was a draw!"
It will be a very proud moment that you guessed right on a 50/50 shot. The highlight of your chess career, to be sure.
brutal
lol 
so lets say computers solve chess. then what ?
Then we would need to be very skeptical that this has been done as probably the proof that this has been done would take many lifetimes to read.
But, people like me would say: "I told you it was a draw!"
It will be a very proud moment that you guessed right on a 50/50 shot. The highlight of your chess career, to be sure.
brutal
lol
Savage!
I can just imagine
"you fugly Mr Ed lookin martha farker, some people talk a lot of horse shit, but apparently for you being full of it was a birthright."
I can just imagine
"you fugly Mr Ed lookin martha farker, some people talk a lot of horse shit, but apparently for you being full of it was a birthright."
lol
you know this thread is quite good, its nice to see tickler and ponz putting their heart into the debate, reminds me of Rocky v Creed.
You CAN'T WIN.
You've seen how good he is.
It's suicide!
(that's the right movie right? Or am I crazy)
We all know the only reason Creed lost to Drago was he wore himself out dancing
so lets say computers solve chess. then what ?
Then we would need to be very skeptical that this has been done as probably the proof that this has been done would take many lifetimes to read.
But, people like me would say: "I told you it was a draw!"
It will be a very proud moment that you guessed right on a 50/50 shot. The highlight of your chess career, to be sure.
50/50 shot! Haha.
...However, it can safely be ruled out that if chess is either a win for White or Black, losing in 16 moves is not a perfect game...
I don't think that has been proven. There may be a perfect game where one side can force a win in 16 moves. Or do you know of a mathematical study that shows it's impossible?
My answer would be that, yes, it could definitely be proven that a checkmate in 16 moves cannot be forced by either side from the starting position. It would likely require a significant investment of both human effort and computational resources, and custom written software might be needed as well, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it is feasibly doable.
When running on sufficiently powerful hardware, the strongest modern-day engines can easily reach calculation depths of over 30 ply when given enough time to analyze a position. And for anyone familiar with typical engine analysis, the results speak for themselves -- it is not uncommon for strong programs such as Stockfish to announce mate in 15+ moves, even in situations where tablebase lookups would be quite useless.
Of course, there are also two main reasons why this (the impossibility of a forced mate in 16 from the starting position) has probably not been proven in the absolute mathematical sense. For one thing, the study of the game of chess itself is not something that tends to attract the interest of professional mathematicians, and so you are not going to find very many formal mathematical proofs that are directly related to normal FIDE chess; all of the heavy lifting, with regard to chess theory, is being done by professional players and/or experts specializing in home analysis, using the best chess software and hardware available. Secondly, there would be no practical purpose for a definitive resolution of such a question. Among other reasons, it would not be useful because the answer is already obvious to anyone who has devoted serious time to theoretical chess analysis.
Yes, right now it seems like engines are threatening chess because they are still enough close to humans in strength but are clearly dominant in every situation...but once engines have left humans far behind in the dust, then humans will go back to playing other humans without the stigma of engines. Much the same way that runners and horseback riders don't get all butthurt that a Formula 1 Racer can blow them away...that ship sailed long ago. It becomes obvious and conclusive and therefore irrelevant.
Engines are close to humans?
That's news to me.
It's pretty standard for even pro players to ignore the engine and choose practical lines instead (of course this is even more true for the rest of us).
Yes, obviously, they are. You need to keep things in perspective. It was as recently as 2006 (a blip in chess history) that Kramnik still thought he had a chance to play an engine straight up and win. People still argue that Carlsen could statistically beat Stockfish in some low percentage of games (probably not true). Kasparov is still not 100% sure IBM didn't cheat with Deep Blue 
...in spite of where engines have gone since then.
It won't be until engines are so far past us that GMs can't even pretend to fathom engine choices anymore that the fear that chess will be "destroyed" by of the presence of engines will start to fade away and human beings won't feel disappointed that a machine can best them in an endeavor they used to be better at.
Same thing will happen with self-driving cars. Human beings will be convinced they can do it better and safer...until they just can't to a degree that isn't even arguable anymore. Lol, just wait until a self driving car wins the Indy 500...the massive communal letdown will be comical.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Yeah, and with AI doing more and more in the future stigmas like this wont even exist.
You were the chosen one!
[…] so you are not going to find very many formal mathematical proofs that are directly related to normal FIDE chess.
Here are the closest things you are likely to find, as far as chess-related mathematical proofs are concerned:
Proof that the determination of optimal play in generalized n x n chess is a problem which is EXP-complete: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0097316581900169
Proof that the game-theoretic value of Gardner's chess is a draw: https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7118
Oh, I see what you mean.
Yeah, and with AI doing more and more in the future stigmas like this wont even exist.
You say this very confidently, as though it were merely a statement of common sense. But in all the reading I've ever done over the last 5-10 years regarding advances in AI, I have yet to come across convincing evidence of this (i.e. the implication that, within the next 1-2 decades, all forms of human intelligence, skill, and expertise will be surpassed by that of AI capabilities and thus become entirely meaningless/irrelevant). Note that, when I say "convincing evidence", I am talking about well-documented, reproducible results achieved by AI in a legitimate real-world environment without any kind of human guidance or assistance.
The problem with such claims (I have heard numerous such "factual" pronouncements over the years) is that the people making them rarely understand what is meant by "all forms of human intelligence, skill, and expertise" in a practical context. By necessity, most of what that actually encompasses is going to lie outside the purview of the individual making said claim. So what these AI-related proclamations really amount to is something like: "Inevitably, computers will soon be able to perform better than all living humans at task X, where X could represent the domain of specialization of any living person on the planet, including many domains that I know little or nothing about." Of course, the only basis for this would be meaningful, verifiable progress towards designing a machine that will be able to perform a useful task... to be decided upon after designing said machine.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Yeah, and with AI doing more and more in the future stigmas like this wont even exist.
You say this very confidently, as though it were merely a statement of common sense. But in all the reading I've ever done over the last 5-10 years regarding advances in AI, I have yet to come across convincing evidence of this (i.e. the implication that, within the next 1-2 decades, all forms of human intelligence, skill, and expertise will be surpassed by that of AI capabilities and thus become entirely meaningless/irrelevant). Note that, when I say "convincing evidence", I am talking about well-documented, reproducible results achieved by AI in a legitimate real-world environment without any kind of human guidance or assistance.
The problem with such claims (I have heard numerous such "factual" pronouncements over the years) is that the people making them rarely understand what is meant by "all forms of human intelligence, skill, and expertise" in a practical context. By necessity, most of what that actually encompasses is going to lie outside the purview of the individual making said claim. So what these AI-related proclamations really amount to is something like: "Inevitably, computers will soon be able to perform better than all living humans at task X, where X could represent the domain of specialization of any living person on the planet, including many domains that I know little or nothing about." Of course, the only basis for this would be meaningful, verifiable progress towards designing a machine that will be able to perform a useful task... to be decided upon after designing said machine.
I didn't mean 1 to 2 decades.
Honestly I didn't have a time frame in mind, but lets say 1000 years from now. If tech keeps advancing they'll look back on these times like we might the dark ages 
What is the name of the artificial intelligence who is ruler of all the artificial intelligences?
They call him Two-TECs, he tote two TECs
And when he start to bust he like to ask, "Who's next?"
Yes, right now it seems like engines are threatening chess because they are still enough close to humans in strength but are clearly dominant in every situation...but once engines have left humans far behind in the dust, then humans will go back to playing other humans without the stigma of engines. Much the same way that runners and horseback riders don't get all butthurt that a Formula 1 Racer can blow them away...that ship sailed long ago. It becomes obvious and conclusive and therefore irrelevant.
Engines are close to humans?
That's news to me.
It's pretty standard for even pro players to ignore the engine and choose practical lines instead (of course this is even more true for the rest of us).
Yes, obviously, they are. You need to keep things in perspective. It was as recently as 2006 (a blip in chess history) that Kramnik still thought he had a chance to play an engine straight up and win. People still argue that Carlsen could statistically beat Stockfish in some low percentage of games (probably not true). Kasparov is still not 100% sure IBM didn't cheat with Deep Blue ...in spite of where engines have gone since then.
Don't forget to mention that engines are still as terrible as ever in a large number of human-composed positions. I seem to recall a couple of such positions that were already posted here by ponz111, but there are of course countless others.
It won't be until engines are so far past us that GMs can't even pretend to fathom engine choices anymore that the fear that chess will be "destroyed" by of the presence of engines will start to fade away and human beings won't feel disappointed that a machine can best them in an endeavor they used to be better at.
I think you mean "unless engines are so far past us that...". Otherwise, you're just assuming that optimal play would correspond to some absurdly high Elo rating, and that future AI developments will allow engines to easily approach such a rating. Rising draw rates in correspondence play (among other things) suggest that such claims are questionable, at best.
Same thing will happen with self-driving cars. Human beings will be convinced they can do it better and safer...until they just can't to a degree that isn't even arguable anymore. Lol, just wait until a self driving car wins the Indy 500...the massive communal letdown will be comical.
If you're referring to the self-driving cars that are currently being designed, then a similar sort of car winning the Indy 500 would not be an achievement comparable to what you're suggesting (i.e. an irrefutable eclipse of human ability at a particular skill). To claim that AI had fully transcended the skills of human drivers, you would first need to design a robot capable of operating a standard motor vehicle of the kind that is actually used in such events. Said robot would then have to win a number of prestigious events involving all of the top professional drivers, using a sanctioned vehicle for every race. And even then, the accomplishment would still be somewhat marred if the robot was aided during these races by a human pit crew.
Steady and arguably declining draw rates in TCEC imply the opposite, though.
Engines are still terrible in positions where the bulk of benefit is past their horizon (naturally)...which is why for a long time the notorious Bxh7+ sacrifices seemed to stump many engines and probably still stump many engines. A lot of that also comes from human valuations, though. The new breed of engines that are bootstrapping their own play vs. being setup with a dataset of human-derived valuations are going to be that much better.
I would argue that any self-driven car that follows just the basic parameters, has the same restrictor plates, tires, etc. would create that same letdown effect. The key would simply be watching a self-driven car driving effortlessly through a 10-car crash sequence, draft the leader perfectly on the final lap and slingshot to an easy win, etc.
Of course, anyone that does this for entertainment value would naturally try to have a non-human pit crew as well, simply for the effect/drama.
so lets say computers solve chess. then what ?
Then we would need to be very skeptical that this has been done as probably the proof that this has been done would take many lifetimes to read.
But, people like me would say: "I told you it was a draw!"
It will be a very proud moment that you guessed right on a 50/50 shot. The highlight of your chess career, to be sure.