Unlike in movies, most smart people aren't good in chess.
Unlike in movies, most smart people aren't good in chess.
Sure, playing chess needs intelligence, dedication, and good chess players are smarter than an average person. But it's waaaay exaggerated in movies. I'm a math researcher, and in any movie, my department will be full of chess geniuses. But in reality, only about 10% of them even play chess.
You're viewing a single thread.
Chess is a solved game which is not a fit tool for evaluating intelligence.
Caveat: Solved if you have access to massive compute power and a finely tuned algorithm.
It's not solved for the average player.
It's arguably not solved at all. If it were, we would know whether white can always win or whether black can always draw, and that's still unknown.
Thats not what solved means in this context but chess people are so offended that's its impossible to ever discuss this so sure whatever.
It's definitely not solved. Even stockfish has been beaten by more advanced AIs, and there is always the possibility of making even better ones.
Also, humans can't solve it on their own. With time constraints a human player is unable to make a "perfect" move every time.
Nah in game terms chess is absolutely a solved game. Some meme edge cases do not invalidate that.
[citation needed]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Lomonosov_tablebases
The only argument for "chess is not solved" is because of sheer math number but its a flawed argument as any game with sufficient amount of positions would be considered unsolved.
So for all practical intents and purposes - chess is a solved game but people are too attached to admit it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess
No, the argument for "chess is not solved" is that unless you can tell me whether or not it is possible for white to force a win, then it is - by definition - not solved.
Again "unsolvable" through sheer amount of positions at the beginning of the game (at its literally solved at 7 pieces) so this is just a cop out because thats boring as fuck. It's not an interesting game where computational power is the only challenge and not even that much towards the last steps of the game.
What is a game that wouldn't be solvable if you removed most of the pieces and positions?
I mean, yes. Any game with only a small number of possible moves can be solved with brute force trial and error.
All unsolved games must have a "sufficient amount of positions" that brute force isn't an option, and enough complexity that there's not a cute maths trick to solve it despite the number of moves.
Chess is one of these unsolved games.