3 ms·

I strongly disagree with the assertion that chess is a "close to solved game" in human OTB play in particular. Top GMs currently will probably score 0/12 again

by dh5 6y ago

I strongly disagree with the assertion that chess is a "close to solved game" in human OTB play in particular. Top GMs currently will probably score 0/12 against Leela/Stockfish. We see innovations frequently in recent years as we learn from engines themselves, h4/h5 pushes as a simple example, but also in terms of style like favoring rapid development and attacking play. Yes, draws are frequent but that doesn't mean there is no excitement in long games. Rapid/blitz is damn fun to watch and play but there's a certain, different kind of elegance in carefully considered moves as well.

me_me_me 6y ago
> I strongly disagree with the assertion that chess is a "close to solved game" in human OTB play in particular. I meant 90min +30mins classical format. It really is stale and boring to watch. And it seems like its mainly a memory game with some meta counter preparations pre-tournament. Where you develop and memorize lines to counter your opponent. That's what I meant by "close to solved game" - as both players are almost role playing for first 20-30 moves. With tiny variations throughout the tournament. That results in quite uneventful games, usually same line being played in multiple games. Anyhow that's just an opinion, if someone enjoys classical more power to them.
- gowld 6y ago
  Slow chess is not solved by any human; it's broken. It's dead-ended because some better players avoid aggression so they can play short-time tiebreakers instead.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    agreed - 'solved' is wrong term. Maybe peaked to the point top players are almost equal.
- bjourne 6y ago
  Agreed. Also seem to be not enough incentive to win games. E.g. if Magnus Carlsen thinks he can probably win, he'd settle for a draw if that is the safer alternative. Perhaps it could be changed so that wins count for three points and draws only one. No idea if that would encourage players to become more aggressive.

by dh5 6y ago

me_me_me 6y ago

> I strongly disagree with the assertion that chess is a "close to solved game" in human OTB play in particular. I meant 90min +30mins classical format. It really is stale and boring to watch. And it seems like its mainly a memory game with some meta counter preparations pre-tournament. Where you develop and memorize lines to counter your opponent. That's what I meant by "close to solved game" - as both players are almost role playing for first 20-30 moves. With tiny variations throughout the tournament. That results in quite uneventful games, usually same line being played in multiple games. Anyhow that's just an opinion, if someone enjoys classical more power to them.

gowld 6y ago
Slow chess is not solved by any human; it's broken. It's dead-ended because some better players avoid aggression so they can play short-time tiebreakers instead.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  agreed - 'solved' is wrong term. Maybe peaked to the point top players are almost equal.
bjourne 6y ago
Agreed. Also seem to be not enough incentive to win games. E.g. if Magnus Carlsen thinks he can probably win, he'd settle for a draw if that is the safer alternative. Perhaps it could be changed so that wins count for three points and draws only one. No idea if that would encourage players to become more aggressive.