Chess is clearly solved (top-100 age lists)

12 year-olds over 2500 many over 2200...

Chess is turning into a child's puzzle. The rules need to be changed and theory rendered irrelevant without disturbing the basic structure of the game (like 9x9 or something else 960 isn't enough).

Many of them with efficient computers too.

That's not what solved means.

@diracdeltafunk said in #3:
> That's not what solved means.

Not yet but it's clearly getting there with large numbers of younger players rapidly rising to the top ranks. It's like a jigsaw puzzle with only a few remaining pieces getting easier by the day.

The engines are fixing every mistake instantly. The game can't survive this and the ratings are showing this. Kids never used to be this strong.

Chess is not solved, there are literally Gazibilions of Trilliozillions of Bazilions (don’t know these are actually numbers) of possibilities... in the first 15 moves!!! the best computer In the world would take gazillions of years to solve chess, and still be on move 10!

And yet most adults play and study it for years and can't surpass 2000 elo. That's like saying learnign a language is like a jigsaw puzzle because kids learn it faster and better than adults. Chess learning is just more optimized, tell me what is the problem of an increase in playing strength?

Let me remind you that at least over 99% of people that regularly play chess aren't masters

@jedi_vasik said in #5:
> Chess is not solved, there are literally Gazibilions of Trilliozillions of Bazilions (don’t know these are actually numbers) of possibilities... in the first 15 moves!!! the best computer In the world would take gazillions of years to solve chess, and still be on move 10!

How many GMs make even a slight mistake before move 10, or even move 20?

This is how checkers was solved. Once you get even to move six (like with my universal system or the London) you've reduced the game to a lot. We've already solved seven-piece endings so it's not that big a bridge in the middlegame, and most major theory has been exhausted. Throw in The Queen's Gambit and now the whole world is playing increasingly perfect chess.

The top-100 youth lists by age are scary. Hundreds of kids not even sixteen years old passing 2200 when in the 1980s you had maybe three or four if that. There's a 12 year-old GM and another 12 year-old girl who just hit 2273.

I'd like to see the game survive but I'm not holding out much hope.

@Diego_Garcia said in #6:
> And yet most adults play and study it for years and can't surpass 2000 elo. That's like saying learnign a language is like a jigsaw puzzle because kids learn it faster and better than adults. Chess learning is just more optimized, tell me what is the problem of an increase in playing strength?
>
> Let me remind you that at least over 99% of people that regularly play chess aren't masters

Most don't try to be even if they say they want to be. Of those who try, especially among the kids, they're getting better, quicker, at much younger ages, and in much greater numbers, while theory has exploded just as the Queen's Gambit made chess a top e-sport.

When was there last a 12 year-old girl not named Polgar who was 2273? Alice Lee from Minnesota is rising very fast and she's 300 points below the 2600-level GM in New Jersey.

Heck I've improved 700-800 points in the last seven years and I'm fifty-five. My main sparring partner/coach just crossed 2500 on here at Blitz and he's SIXTY-FOUR. Older people have a lot of time on their hands and don't have to travel to play so the old rules don't even apply.

I see chess rapidly going the way of checkers once people start publishing full drawing lines. We're not that far away as it is. In the future, blunders by the opponent will be the only way to win.

@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #7:
>
> We've already solved seven-piece endings so it's not that big a bridge in the middlegame, and most major theory has been exhausted. Throw in The Queen's Gambit and now the whole world is playing increasingly perfect chess.
>

"It's not that big a bridge" - The numbers explode exponentially at every piece you throw, only quantum computers could possibly come close to solving chess and that would require a massive amount of memory, no human could ever learn the solutions (who are probably drawish) by heart.

It's like saying well we discovered a lot of planets so it's not that big of a bridge we'll discover them all!

> I see chess rapidly going the way of checkers once people start publishing full drawing lines. We're not that far away as it is. In the future, blunders by the opponent will be the only way to win.

It essentially already is, doesn't mean the game is solved.

@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #7:
> How many GMs make even a slight mistake before move 10, or even move 20?
>
> This is how checkers was solved. Once you get even to move six (like with my universal system or the London) you've reduced the game to a lot. We've already solved seven-piece endings so it's not that big a bridge in the middlegame, and most major theory has been exhausted. Throw in The Queen's Gambit and now the whole world is playing increasingly perfect chess.

at least half of chess players are under or around 1500, nowhere near everyone being a GM

and on the subject of tablebases, every piece you add increases the amount of moves you have to consider to "solve" it EXPONENTIALLY.

for example, if you had a 2 piece endgame and they were both kings (not touching any walls), they could each make 8 moves so in the space of 1 move, you could have 64 different combinations

but if you had king+knight vs king and the knight was on e5 and the kings weren't touching a wall, you would have 128 different combinations and that would add up and get bigger insanely fast

we will need lots more time or much stronger computers to be able to solve chess. even if you watch the CCC on chess.com (computer chess championship) you'll see wins for white, draws, and even wins for black at times. it's mostly draws, but not all. computers aren't even perfect at chess yet, it will take a while for them to be, so humans are light years behind

chess has been around for thousands of years (probably) and I predict it will exist for hundreds if not thousands more