Originally posted by powershakerI think that it's dying because of computers. Fischer isn't the only one who's said so. A lot of GMs think that chess in a non random form will be played out within ten years.
Do you think like Fischer? Is chess really dead? 🙁 I hope not, because I love it.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3468
Go to the section numbered - > 33' 10"
This is only competetively though for people like us. The game, played for fun between patzers, will never die.
One third of the game is dead. Openings are completely played out and there is no room for innovation there at all. Of course there is still some fun to be had in mid-game and end-game. I recently started playing Chess960 (Fischer Random) with my wife, and it has reinvigorated my love for chess. You have to actually think throughout the game, rote has been completely removed from the game.
Originally posted by eertognamIf chess is dying, then how come more people than ever are playing it? How come there are more chess professionals than ever?
One third of the game is dead. Openings are completely played out and there is no room for innovation there at all. Of course there is still some fun to be had in mid-game and end-game. I recently started playing Chess960 (Fischer Random) with my wife, and it has reinvigorated my love for chess. You have to actually think throughout the game, rote has been completely removed from the game.
Saying that "openings are completely played out" reminds me of an attempt in the late nineteenth century to close the Patent Office because everything useful had already been invented!
There are opening innovations going on all the time, and I believe there will be opening innovations a hundred years from now.
Back in the nineteenth century, a tournament was held in which openings were drawn by lots to take the players out of their opening book!
There are trillions and trillions of possible moves in chess, and I don't think the Earth will be here long enough to play them all!
The world chess championship will keep chess alive. . . .If one international body can be recognized, that gives an open forum in which every chess player can compete. . . . The rise of computational algorithms to beat humans is an inevitability but will take nothing away from the competitive spirit that exists between people.
Even if chess was solved it wouldn't make any difference to me or most other players.People get excited if someone runs 100 metres in.01 seconds quicker than the last but a fast car can do it a lot quicker and who cares? I believe humans and computers have only scratched the surface of chess. 1. f3 2.Kf2 may win. King is activated for the endgame
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by eertognam"One third of the game is dead. Openings are completely played out and there is no room for innovation there at all."
One third of the game is dead. Openings are completely played out and there is no room for innovation there at all. Of course there is still some fun to be had in mid-game and end-game. I recently started playing Chess960 (Fischer Random) with my wife, and it has reinvigorated my love for chess. You have to actually think throughout the game, rote has been completely removed from the game.
This isnt true. You get opening novelties all the time. If you compare opening theory from today to a year ago you will find big differences.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by powershakerI think Fischer has been away from chess for too long 😛
Do you think like Fischer? Is chess really dead? 🙁 I hope not, because I love it.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3468
Go to the section numbered - > 33' 10"
Chess is far from dead......when you look at the blunders in everyones games...average players or even GM's....and ask if those blunders will ever go away the answer is no....chess will always be competitive and those who say it is dead have either perfected the game in secret and failed to tell the world or are just plain wrong.
Fischer might - and I say might - have a point. Computers may eventually take some of the mystery away from chess. Eventually it might die at the highest levels, but I doubt we will see it in our lifetime. Dire predictions are usually wrong.
From what I understand of chess programs, they understand the point value of pieces, what it takes to win and calculate out a certain number of moves. Eliminating the moves that are proven garbage in the first couple of ply so it doesn't waste processing power running crap out 10 or 20 ply or whatever ply they calculate out to. Someday, the processing power will be available to calculate out hundreds of ply. 10 years? Who knows? This will get closer to solving it, but not there entirely. At some point (Maybe in 20 years? There must be some computer people on this board that have an idea how long it will take.) the processing power will be available to forget about point values and discarding garbage lines. When this happens, its just a matter of firing up a room full of computers and letting them bang away at every possible move for a couple of years. Computers will solve chess. Nobody knows when it will happen or if it will be a win or a draw, but it will happen eventually. After computers solve it, that will very likely take some of the mystery from the game. I know it will poo-poo some of the mystery for me.
I have learned that many people consider certain openings refuted or unsound but when faced with them they can't prove it.
So just because a computer can tell you that you made a mistake it will not take the enjoyment out of OTB play or internet play unless computers are used to cheat.
I do think that opening theory has become too in depth and that Fischer Random is a brilliant innovation. but... at my level I don't ever have to worry about the mystery leaving.
Originally posted by MerkIt's not going to be nearly as easy to solve chess as you think it is. Depending on whose estimate you believe, there might be 10^123 possible chess games, and somewhere between 10^40 and 10^50 legal positions. For comparison, the estimated number of atoms in the universe is estimated between 4x10^79 and 10^81 (thanks, Wikipedia!). It may never be possible to solve chess in any practical manner. Certainly not in our lifetime, barring some miracle computer breakthough that dooms go too. 🙂
From what I understand of chess programs, they understand the point value of pieces, what it takes to win and calculate out a certain number of moves. Eliminating the moves that are proven garbage in the first couple of ply so it doesn't waste processing power running crap out 10 or 20 ply or whatever ply they calculate out to. Someday, the processing power wil ...[text shortened]... kely take some of the mystery from the game. I know it will poo-poo some of the mystery for me.
No, I don't Fischer is right at all. Opening innovations happen quite frequently even today and the opening is also only one part of the game. It gets you to a middlegame you like and there are hundreds of good openings to choose from. The variety is so great that I don't think it will ever be a problem.
Even if chess is solved, which I believe will never happen, who cares? The winnning line will probably be over 100 moves and will only work if your opponent plays the "best moves." Instead, your opponent can deviate and then you actually have to THINK. Sure you might have a slight theoretical advantage, but it won't really matter because it would be very small, just like it is today in pretty much every opening at the GM level.