4 ms·

I imagine there will come a point where algorithmic chess (I wouldn't call it AI) results in perfect play, where every match ends as a draw. Much like the scene

I imagine there will come a point where algorithmic chess (I wouldn't call it AI) results in perfect play, where every match ends as a draw. Much like the scene in War Games where the computer plays tic-tac-toe against itself and every game ends in a draw. Given sufficient resources, and the fact that there is no chance at all in chess (save choosing who moves first), it seems to me it's only a matter of time before every move is the perfect move. That would mean one of two things: either every game ends in a draw, or every game ends with white winning. The end result of this is that every game will be the same. Given two effectively infinitely-skilled computer players, there's no more game to play. There's always a best move, and the best one could hope for is the draw (or, again, white would always win; I'm not sure if it's been proven that first move guarantees a win with perfect play--but it's one case or the other). Human vs. human will remain a compelling game, both for players and observers, but computer-vs-computer will cease to be interesting at all. As will human-vs-computer, except maybe as a way to see who can survive the longest before losing or drawing; no human can win against the best computers even today, and never will again.

arkadiyt 7y ago
> I'm not sure if it's been proven that first move guarantees a win with perfect play It has not, chess is an unsolved game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess
- jobigoud 7y ago
  In this scenario human vs human is not very compelling when all they do is make mistakes. The only analysis left is how bad their mistakes are.
  - seanhunter 7y ago
    There are positions in chess that have been disputed for decades or more which are just now coming alive because of the ability of engines to analyse lines. The thing that's interesting about high-level chess is how players play out particular strategic themes that result from known positions (eg initiative vs material, the open H file for white in the London system vs not being able to castle kingside, play in the center versus counterplay on the flanks etc etc etc). My recommendation would be watch a really good game analysis like Agadmator's youtube channel. One like this might be fun to start https://youtu.be/vztVylqnBSo https://youtu.be/vztVylqnBSo or one of the Capablanca vs Lasker games. Alternatively John Bartholomew and Eric Rosen have fun channels where they play and commentate on their thought process.
    - Bantros 7y ago
      Good to see Agadmator getting a shout out

arkadiyt 7y ago

> I'm not sure if it's been proven that first move guarantees a win with perfect play It has not, chess is an unsolved game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess

jobigoud 7y ago
In this scenario human vs human is not very compelling when all they do is make mistakes. The only analysis left is how bad their mistakes are.
- seanhunter 7y ago
  There are positions in chess that have been disputed for decades or more which are just now coming alive because of the ability of engines to analyse lines. The thing that's interesting about high-level chess is how players play out particular strategic themes that result from known positions (eg initiative vs material, the open H file for white in the London system vs not being able to castle kingside, play in the center versus counterplay on the flanks etc etc etc). My recommendation would be watch a really good game analysis like Agadmator's youtube channel. One like this might be fun to start https://youtu.be/vztVylqnBSo https://youtu.be/vztVylqnBSo or one of the Capablanca vs Lasker games. Alternatively John Bartholomew and Eric Rosen have fun channels where they play and commentate on their thought process.
  - Bantros 7y ago
    Good to see Agadmator getting a shout out