True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

+1

I tell students that if two kings ever stand next to each other on the chessboard, the universe will begin to unravel. They don't yet know that the universe has been unraveling since the Big Bang. Nor do many of them know about the creator twins, as most have been raised in a much more recent tradition.

The whole business with centaur chess is nearly pathetic - "Oh machines have gotten better than people, but people must still be useful for machines".  The programming hasn't yet eliminated centaur chess.  Houdini still plays endings pretty badly because the fundamental game tree concept doesn't work as well as planning to achieve easily described goals.  On the other hand, I could spend a few months and write say a "bishop + pawns vs bishop + pawns" endgame engine that would destroy Houdini and J.R. Capablanca. 

In 10 years, Centaur chess will seem quaint. 

The best Centaurs are probably 100 to 150 points stronger than the strongest chess engines.  That is my guess. The strongest chess engines are quite a bit stronger than the strongest human.

I am currently experimenting with a kind of centaur chess in another thread.

Thanks. I actually did need a refersher on Computational Complexity Theory. 

It is my guess that unfortuately and eventually correspondence chess [I mean chess engines allowed] will die out.  This is because centaurs have already gotten so strong that it is said White or Black can make sure their game is a draw.  [this at the highest levels]

I am guessing maybe 10 years left.  Right now a lot of people are saying rather unkind words about correspondence chess.  There are probably thousands of correspondence players who still enjoy this type of chess.

They  are not to the level of being able to force a draw with either Black or White.  But they are at a level where they enjoy the type of chess they are playing and please let them enjoy correspondence chess while it lasts?

This is just slightly off subject of can chess be solved but in Centaur Chess, for all practical purposes chess is solved in that they can force a draw but not a win.  [this is not math proof]

Yes and all that is left is a gold chess set perched on a tree branch.

The good things is chess is a draw or a win is only on predictions only atm. I don't see any valid arguments that back them up. All the arguments are invalid atm, including statistics and computers.

bean-Fisher   There are some people who do not "see" the arguments which indicate chess is a draw.  But because you do not see them does not make them invalid.

It is easy to say that all arguments are invalid. Please exlain why you think all arguments are invalid?

bean_Fischer is clearly cut from the same cloth as those who deny climate change and biological science. Or, by restating their position (evidence is irrelevant), he is mocking them.

manfredmann you are putting down possibly thousands of players who are hurting no one and enjoy that type of chess.

It is not just you as many go out of their way to show contempt for these players.  What is the point--as I said they are not hurting anybody?

Because it's not a fact?

The seasonal variations of the extent of Arctic ice do not alter the fact that its total mass continues to decrease. You won't get science from the Daily Mail; you'll get misunderstanding.

manfredmann, about that "consensus" and the 97% number:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/

"Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions."

So, who's the ignorant slut now?

They don't mention this red herring because, ... well, because they are scientists who understand the difference between breadth and depth and volume.

But, they do mention it because lies must be refuted and misunderstandings corrected. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm 

Haha!  No global warming?  Shit! We're all gonna' freeze!

Suggestion if you really want a good discussion on a subject such a Global Warmings--there is a special format for this and you will find opinions backed up by facts.

The universe could actually store the data. It is even possible with recent breakthroughs in storage technology that the data could be squeezed into the solar system.

Harvard researchers managed to store 5.5 petabytes (~700 terabytes) in a single gram of DNA.

Once the data is generated and stored in the solar system, we need only sequence the solar system's DNA to retrieve it.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram

When RAM is measured in yottabytes, we'll be on the cusp of success.

...and if you want a discussion about whether or not chess will ever be "solved," there are several forum threads on that  topic as well.

A gram of DNA?  Considering how microscopic DNA strands are that must be a buttload! 

Oh! Forum. When he said format, I thought that I needed a different font.