Death of chess.

@Abigail-III said in #40:
> That is not true. HeX is a solved game for any N x N sized board: it's a win for the first player with perfect play. And the proof is easy: no game can end in a draw, and with a strategy stealing argument you can show that if there's a winning strategy for the second player, there is one for the first.
>
> But for large enough N, we don't know the strategy.
>
> If you have a way to force a win, then the game is solved. But a game can be solved without having a way to a win.

You are right. I was referring to a strong or a weak solution. A game can also be solved without a strategy being found. This is known as an ultra-weak solution. I stand corrected.

If I can prove that as on date, neither white nor black can not force a win or draw from the initial position even when the game is played by the best chess engine, it is sufficient to prove that chess is not solved. Though white has a first-move advantage, chess engines have not been able to use it to force a win or a draw with white.

If you can not always force your opponent to resign the game is solved. Both sides have about a fair chance. The solution can be in the beginning and not always the end. ;)

@vsdgniuz said in #41:
>
> If I can prove that as on date, neither white nor black can not force a win or draw from the initial position even when the game is played by the best chess engine, it is sufficient to prove that chess is not solved. Though white has a first-move advantage, chess engines have not been able to use it to force a win or a draw with white.

I don't get that. That only proves noone has programmed a chess engine to force a win or draw. It doesn't prove the game itself isn't solved. Suppose tomorrow someone finds a forced win for white, but it takes another month for it to be programmed into an engine, does that mean chess isn't solved for another month?

> Death of chess
Kramnik, is that you? :)

@Brian-E said in #12:
> Here's some food for thought:
>
> The International Correspondence Chess Federation allows engine use (an accident of history, too late to remedy now). Correspondence play here forbids engine use, but it's normal in the ICCF.
>
> So top Correspondence masters use engines for their play. But they don't just play the top engine moves all the time: if they did, they would lose. They add their own judgment and choose moves which are not necessarily the best but still tactically sound and tailored to make it difficult for their opponent's chess engines to find the right moves.
>
> It's a weird exercise in my opinion, and I don't pretend to understand exactly what top Correspondence players are doing. But doesn't it suggest to you @Clearchesser that there is more to human chess play than merely what the engine says?
@Brian-E said in #12:
> Here's some food for thought:
>
> The International Correspondence Chess Federation allows engine use (an accident of history, too late to remedy now). Correspondence play here forbids engine use, but it's normal in the ICCF.
>
> So top Correspondence masters use engines for their play. But they don't just play the top engine moves all the time: if they did, they would lose. They add their own judgment and choose moves which are not necessarily the best but still tactically sound and tailored to make it difficult for their opponent's chess engines to find the right moves.
>
> It's a weird exercise in my opinion, and I don't pretend to understand exactly what top Correspondence players are doing. But doesn't it suggest to you @Clearchesser that there is more to human chess play than merely what the engine says?

Please redefine the subject title. Chess has never been alive, nor can it die out. Chess can continue to change like it has in the past. Some like to tweak things, so tweak chess by a small rule change every so often to keep up with the times. Nothing is perfect and can be modified to suite the worlds wants and needs. The chess rules is like a recipe and that can change too. Even laws can become obsolete over time.

The newer players are lucky to have access to powerful computers. It gives them a better clue how to play compared to the past. Your own judgment can add spice to the game. Though if nothing was wrong about the way they play could it make for a boring game? The chances where everything does it all right one day are slim imo.

@Abigail-III said in #43:
> I don't get that. That only proves noone has programmed a chess engine to force a win or draw. It doesn't prove the game itself isn't solved. Suppose tomorrow someone finds a forced win for white, but it takes another month for it to be programmed into an engine, does that mean chess isn't solved for another month?

Interesting point of view. Let's say I went to Jupiter this Monday and came back yesterday. It will take me 30 years to write down and explain the method I used to accomplish this due to complexity. I might even die before I can publish it. Does it mean I didn't go to Jupiter?

I think the above example is sufficient to explain my point of view. Chess will be believed to be solved only when the proof is published and verified. Not before.

When something is solved it's according to the present rules used, and not past rules or future rule changes. If it is declared solved like checkers, than rules need to change to remove the solved effect. If a variant gets solved, I will stop playing it. It's like hunting for a treasure that has already been found. The pleasure is in the hunt.

@Clearchesser said in #1:
> When was the last time you needed to confer with someone regarding the position? If people can use computers during a tournament that is already a tell they do not need you before or after. Even without computers no one is coming along to consistently beat Magnus at the game. I am proud to be part of the last generation of human chess players.

If u don’t take advantage of the new technology, then you will be surpassed by those who do
>
> I am still proud of Ding yet it all feels like an afterthought now. I will annotate my study for those to improve. Maybe you will revitalize the game in a way we have never seen before. On the other hand, I will continue to get too old to care. The positive is the game kept me busy. There are better hobbies; there are also far worse ones.
>
> GG.