The (rather poor IMHO) idea of eliminating stalemate is to make the drawing margin narrower (basically by ensuring king and pawn always wins).

It’s probably true that even if chess is solved humans will not be able to memorise the solution, but whether it will retain its popularity in an environment where all people are trying to do is remember computer solutions is another question. As a parlour game, sure, but without money and tournaments there are no strong players, and without them I’m not sure there’s any beautiful games, and in turn really any point. You might as well do sudoku.

Anyone remember a story in Chess magazine in the seventies, about a future where the game had been solved but people still went to chess clubs and drew all their games (“the Caro-Kann is the standard way to draw against 1 e4”)? A sort of HM Bateman scenario where a chap comes in off the street, plays for a win against a club player, and almost succeeds.

Prince-Nez wrote on 10/16/06 at 02:05:36:


Even assuming computers have solved chess, we don’t need to go to 960. Just position no 2. Interchange Knight at bishops and we can go on for another century.

Here symmetry is maintained but the knight pawns are left undefended.

I suppose it is tricky or a tough call.  But, I think I’d vote for pressing the magical chess “do over” button and causing them to never have been created. 

Golden Age?  Maybe.  Are we already in the twilight of it? 

I’ve heard at least two titled players say that, for all intents and purposes, chess can’t be solved because no one could ever remember all that.   No one could remember the 517 moves of the forced loss in the Benko Gambit.  Probably at least some truth to that.  Maybe a lot.  People still play checkers (draughts), don’t they? 

I hope the solving doesn’t happen in my lifetime as I can’t bear the thought of 960.  Chess has such a beautiful symmetrical starting position that I hope never changes. 

I heard some IM say once that he thought it would do a lot of good to get rid of the stalemate rule.  I wasn’t clever enough to see his point.  I can’t remember who it was.

IMJohnCox wrote on 09/18/06 at 10:02:57:



John, 

In the Best Defense to 1.d4 thread you wrote this:

Quote:



So this means that you believe that chess isn’t “Fritzed out” now but will be in the future? 

And, if so, doesn’t that mean all or many of us have willingly participated in the acceleration of the destruction or solving of our beloved game?  I realize that chess, by its nature, would perhaps “Fritz” itself out even without Fritz.   But certainly that (whatever it is or will exactly look like) will come much sooner because of engines and tablebases.  

Do you think the virtues and conveniences of engines, etc., are worth the price of what they are doing?

Whilst we're on the subject of Fritz - anyone got analysis on White's best on the Wilkes -Barre 4..Bc5 !!???

I suspect Hebden would like to make the switch to Bc5  if he think's nigel's busted his line but he's always been a bit of a risk taker and i think he's unlikely to change but rather refine his play in the Two knights until the next time..........

Markovich wrote on 09/19/06 at 19:50:39:

I still would say Bc5 would yield better winning chances. But in both cases it is not like you can unbalance the position so much as with say the Ng5/d4 lines of the 2Knights.

Willempie wrote on 09/19/06 at 18:10:20:


Sorry for not being clearer.  I meant 3...Nf6  4. d3 and now if not 4...Bc5, it "must" now be 4...Be7 -- given, at least, that 4...d5 is unsound, which I believe it to be.  So if 3...Nf6 is to be recommended as a winning try, then 4...Be7 "must" better facilitate the win than 4...Bc5, eh?