Jeremy Good wrote on Mon, Dec 8, 2014 04:49 PM UTC:
Hehe, in defense of my muddled arithmetic: Why, thank you, George. ;-)
There is discussion of assigning a different value to draws with Black than draws with White based on the overall statistical likelihood of drawing with one versus the other and the perceived (and likely objective) greater difficulty of drawing with Black than with White.
I would say this: One day soon, computers will be so advanced, especially quantum computers, that they will produce a definitive solution of FIDE Chess. At the exact same time, or shortly thereafter, almost every chess variant ever invented will be solved too, I believe, including variants with "bug-eyed monsters" (cf. wikipedia's fairy chess page). The "more chess moves than atoms in the universe" doesn't really apply because there aren't so many moves which are at all sound.
Does that mean professional chess play will be obsolete?
No, no more than extreme fighting is made obsolete by gorillas or kangaroos who can surely outperform in the ring.
As sport, some of these chess variants can still be played by chess athletes even after computers have "solved" them. And the solutions should come with greater clarity too, just as Fermat's problem is currently solved but there may be a more elegant solution still out there.
If my thinking may seem muddled, it's because it is muddled. We may even see the specter of computers and humans working together (appropriate for a likely cyborgian future) to solve chess variants on the spot, in the course of competitive professional play. I don't know.
But possibly "Next Chess" (if there is a "Next Chess") will be too complicated even for forthcoming quantum computers to solve.
If Anand is still performing at a very high level and if Emanuel Lasker and Steinitz could perform highly into their fifties, perhaps Kasparov should come out of retirement and test his mettle. I was one of those, perhaps misguidedly, urging him to retire and pursue politics full time. I do appreciate that he has been an outspoken and courageous voice of dissent against kleptocrat Putin. I've been told that Russian prejudice against Judaism and Armenia has made it impossible for charismatic Garry to gain leverage and perhaps kooky theories of history haven't helped? (Though I haven't kept up on Garry's idea that most historians are off on their recent chronology). Now I'd like to see Garry return to the realm professional sports.
Also, as David Paulowich has pointed out, the basic maxims (heuristics) guiding fine FIDE play are much the same in most chess variants. There is little doubt in my mind that were professional FIDE players to be given financial incentive to go into variants, they would also easily dominate our own realm and easily become the best chess variant players. Or at least highly successful, just as many great professional chess players have done well on the poker circuit.
Hehe, in defense of my muddled arithmetic: Why, thank you, George. ;-)
There is discussion of assigning a different value to draws with Black than draws with White based on the overall statistical likelihood of drawing with one versus the other and the perceived (and likely objective) greater difficulty of drawing with Black than with White.
I would say this: One day soon, computers will be so advanced, especially quantum computers, that they will produce a definitive solution of FIDE Chess. At the exact same time, or shortly thereafter, almost every chess variant ever invented will be solved too, I believe, including variants with "bug-eyed monsters" (cf. wikipedia's fairy chess page). The "more chess moves than atoms in the universe" doesn't really apply because there aren't so many moves which are at all sound.
Does that mean professional chess play will be obsolete?
No, no more than extreme fighting is made obsolete by gorillas or kangaroos who can surely outperform in the ring.
As sport, some of these chess variants can still be played by chess athletes even after computers have "solved" them. And the solutions should come with greater clarity too, just as Fermat's problem is currently solved but there may be a more elegant solution still out there.
If my thinking may seem muddled, it's because it is muddled. We may even see the specter of computers and humans working together (appropriate for a likely cyborgian future) to solve chess variants on the spot, in the course of competitive professional play. I don't know.
But possibly "Next Chess" (if there is a "Next Chess") will be too complicated even for forthcoming quantum computers to solve.
If Anand is still performing at a very high level and if Emanuel Lasker and Steinitz could perform highly into their fifties, perhaps Kasparov should come out of retirement and test his mettle. I was one of those, perhaps misguidedly, urging him to retire and pursue politics full time. I do appreciate that he has been an outspoken and courageous voice of dissent against kleptocrat Putin. I've been told that Russian prejudice against Judaism and Armenia has made it impossible for charismatic Garry to gain leverage and perhaps kooky theories of history haven't helped? (Though I haven't kept up on Garry's idea that most historians are off on their recent chronology). Now I'd like to see Garry return to the realm professional sports.
Also, as David Paulowich has pointed out, the basic maxims (heuristics) guiding fine FIDE play are much the same in most chess variants. There is little doubt in my mind that were professional FIDE players to be given financial incentive to go into variants, they would also easily dominate our own realm and easily become the best chess variant players. Or at least highly successful, just as many great professional chess players have done well on the poker circuit.