Playing like a sport, it is enough to be careful in one move blunders or observing quickly 1 move opportunities, and TADA you are doing well and you are a strong player in blitz. Treating like a science, variations never end. Complextities consume to much study and time, but still you become a good player. which of these ways brings the best results? Playing it simple, or being a human computer?
Chess is simple to play. Chess is difficult to play well.
The rules are fairly easy to understand, but chess is difficult to play because of its complexity. Depends on the position. Some are easier, some are more difficult.
@odoaker2015 said in #3:
> The rules are fairly easy to understand, but chess is difficult to play because of its complexity. Depends on the position. Some are easier, some are more difficult.
Agree! its crucial to understand when its easy and when its becoming a difficult position. We humans dont usually understand when it is difficult, and blunder.
> The rules are fairly easy to understand, but chess is difficult to play because of its complexity. Depends on the position. Some are easier, some are more difficult.
Agree! its crucial to understand when its easy and when its becoming a difficult position. We humans dont usually understand when it is difficult, and blunder.
@GentjanLici I wonder if chess is solvable and if it is, whether that solution will be easy or difficult to understand.
@KingRod said in #5:
> @GentjanLici I wonder if chess is solvable and if it is, whether that solution will be easy or difficult to understand.
I like this idea of solvable chess. Maybe there is a weird kind of moves that leave each opponent possible breathless, even if it is stockfish.
> @GentjanLici I wonder if chess is solvable and if it is, whether that solution will be easy or difficult to understand.
I like this idea of solvable chess. Maybe there is a weird kind of moves that leave each opponent possible breathless, even if it is stockfish.
@KingRod said in #5:
> @GentjanLici I wonder if chess is solvable
In theory, yes, absolutely. There is a solution and a clearly defined method for finding it.
> and if it is, whether that solution will be easy or difficult to understand.
I'll give you a concrete example. In that famous game 6 from the Carlsen-Nepo match at some point there was a drawn tablebase position on the board, i.e. a theoretically solved position drawn with the best play from both sides. Yet, Nepo did not manage to save it.
> @GentjanLici I wonder if chess is solvable
In theory, yes, absolutely. There is a solution and a clearly defined method for finding it.
> and if it is, whether that solution will be easy or difficult to understand.
I'll give you a concrete example. In that famous game 6 from the Carlsen-Nepo match at some point there was a drawn tablebase position on the board, i.e. a theoretically solved position drawn with the best play from both sides. Yet, Nepo did not manage to save it.
It looks like the difficulty is in applying that method then
@GentjanLici said in #8:
> It looks like the difficulty is in applying that method then
Yes.
Essentially, all positions with 7 or fewer pieces are solved. They are now working to complete 8 piece tablebases. Once tablebases are extended to 32 pieces, the game of chess is solved. But with every added piece, the computational complexity increases tremendously.
> It looks like the difficulty is in applying that method then
Yes.
Essentially, all positions with 7 or fewer pieces are solved. They are now working to complete 8 piece tablebases. Once tablebases are extended to 32 pieces, the game of chess is solved. But with every added piece, the computational complexity increases tremendously.
@ohcomeon_1 said in #9:
> Yes.
>
> Essentially, all positions with 7 or fewer pieces are solved. They are now working to complete 8 piece tablebases. Once tablebases are extended to 32 pieces, the game of chess is solved. But with every added piece, the computational complexity increases tremendously.
I hope Carlsen will not kill himself at that point.
> Yes.
>
> Essentially, all positions with 7 or fewer pieces are solved. They are now working to complete 8 piece tablebases. Once tablebases are extended to 32 pieces, the game of chess is solved. But with every added piece, the computational complexity increases tremendously.
I hope Carlsen will not kill himself at that point.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.