chess game online

Chess Game Online

Share and you will uncover!
Nutty name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
kremator 84 ( +1 | -1 )
The fate of chess?? What will happen to chess when humans achieve perfection? The record of the youngest person to receive a master or grandmaster title is being broken every year. The ratings of top players keep soaring higher and higher, and computers are achieving near perfection. There're more draws in Grandmaster games than there're wins or losses, and for some openings there're more draws than ther're wins and losses combined. If humans keep getting better at chess then what will happen to games. Will all games be a draws, technically every game should be a draw but people lose because they make errors be it blunders or 5ths of a pawn off. If humans continue to get better and better what will be the point of playing chess?!
silverwolfwsc 60 ( +1 | -1 )
well i think the GMs make far more blunders than they see, its just that the other guy doesnt know it either. As they get better and better, they will be able to see those blunders and capitalize on them.

The only way that you are going to have a perfect draw each time is if both players can see the entire game, right from the beginning. In a 40 move game, it would take a computer even an awful long time to come up with all the variations. Long enough that we wouldnt be around to see it happen if it started now, and our kids probably wouldnt see it either.

tulkos 11 ( +1 | -1 )
And, If it is the openings that are being played out the answer is simple--- change the postion of the Bishops and knights! Bingo!
kremator 56 ( +1 | -1 )
I think a lot sooner than you think The GM's usually lose because one of them has his bishop on a certain square that is slightly better than the opponent's bishop's square. Or because one of their moves was off by 2 hundreth's of a pawn. Of course they do make errors, but with machines improving more and more anyone serious enough could achieve relatve perfection. Look at Gary Kasparov he barerly makes mistakes and had a draw with a machine, now Kramnik beat Kasparov Annad is catching up, and there's a new generation of players that become grandmaster at 13 coming up.
lukulus 10 ( +1 | -1 )
Jose Raul Capablanca has worried same in 20's and look to history. Last 70 yers wasn bad, or was?
kremator 10 ( +1 | -1 )
Last 70 years Well if you look at the ammount of draws since the time of morphy and to the modern time you'll notice how bad it was.
buddie 11 ( +1 | -1 )
Reducing draws To reduce the number of draws, just have quicker time controls, ensuring more blunders.
kremator 8 ( +1 | -1 )
Draws Many games online are blitz, but in real life it's a different thing.
drgandalf 29 ( +1 | -1 )
Why this concern over draws? Who really cares how many times GMs draw? The practictioner needs to be concerned about his own progress. Who, here on GK, draws too often? Chess will survive, AND FLOURISH, given the current rules, the onslaught of computers, and the amazing ages of new GMs.

BTW, if a GM wants a draw with me, I will accept.
tulkos 14 ( +1 | -1 )
LOL. I think people are to worried over this. After all, thats the GMs problem! We just want to have fun learning and getting better.
kremator 55 ( +1 | -1 )
I am not too concerned I'll probably be dead by when that happens, but computers are soon going to be able to beat humans decisively and now every aspect of chess is dissected under the microscope. There's no magic left in chess anymore everything has a scientific explanation. Eventually humans will be able to get so good at chess that it'll become all about draws. Then again it takes a genius to discover something new and I probably aren't one. I remember this one person saying everything that can be invented has already been invented and boy was he wrong!
zucan 91 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, fortunately... The majority who play chess aren't GM's... This means that the majority of people playing chess will never ever achieve a level close to perfection... and even if computers come close to that level, we aren't computers and will not be changed significantly by their seemingly perfect play.

In the end, chess will flourish more at the lower levels than at the higher levels because chess is fun to play, challenging, rewarding and gives us something to learn and improve upon.

If somebody wants to quit playing chess because somebody or something has reached a level considered to be unbeatable or perfect, that is their business. Personally, I don't care... I doubt I will ever play somebody that comes close to that level, and I certainly don't have to play a computer at its best setting if I want to have a chance of beating it :-)

Zucan
chess_champion 28 ( +1 | -1 )
the answer is simple... as humans evolve and get smarter chess will have to become more difficult... and that is when 3D (three dimensional) chess will come into view:) instead of a flat 2D chess board it will be a 3D board with more moving possibilities...
chess_champion 28 ( +1 | -1 )
the answer is simple... as humans evolve and get smarter chess will have to become more difficult... and that is when 3D (three dimensional) chess will come into view:) instead of a flat 2D chess board it will be a 3D board with more moving possibilities...
hardcorepawn 27 ( +1 | -1 )
I dont think humans are evolving much at the moment. When computers start winning all the time, there will be no more motivation to create more software.

Also how do you know the perfect chess game leads to a draw. It might lead to a white win everytime?
bluebabygirl 93 ( +1 | -1 )
re- as far as i can tell no human to date has played a perfect game of chess. because that would mean that game would lead to a win against every try , never has happened does anyone know of an opening right now that leads to a certain win every time ??? no . as humans we are not perfect and will never play a perfect game of chess! even capa was wrong when he said chess was all played out . yes very wrong . i say if all previous chess genuises never found that perfect game why would you think now it will happen - even if some future SUPER computer tried to analyze to solve this , it would still be analyzing long after earth was destroyed by the sun! no way we humans will ever solve the riddle of the perfect game .And very unlikely that even a computer no matter how powerful will solve it either. yours bluebaygirl
kremator 36 ( +1 | -1 )
to harcorepawn No it wouldn't lead to a white win. Perfect games already exist and then ended with a draw. In a perfect game you always anticipate all of your opponents moves therefore mainting equality throught the whole game and checkmate is not possible if you make the right move every time because if it were the game would be imperfect.
lordnguyenvo 51 ( +1 | -1 )
kremator I don't think people will ever stop making mistakes(either in life or games) so don't worry.Can you post some "perfect" games?I would really like to see them.Maybe someone will even point out their unseen blunders.I think that those ended in draw mainly because they played drawish moves.
Last word from a commercial"Of course we don't live anywhere near perfection so come by at blah blah blah".
bluebabygirl 69 ( +1 | -1 )
to chess champion ?? why do we need a 3 dimensional chess game ?????? nobody not even mr,close to perfect CAPA has completely mastered this 2 dimensional game we play now !! CAPA proposed that chess was all played out . well look at all the gam,es and brilliances and discoveries in chess since then . was he right ? no . maybe a perfect game would always end in a draw who knows?? maybe it would always end in white winning because white moves first who knows?? Chess champion you let me know when somebody has completely mastered chess please tell me thier name ! this PERFECT game quest is quite a riddle most likely will never be solved . yours BBG
r_lawrence 23 ( +1 | -1 )
sometimes a draw IS a win ... 1. Ever go down material in a game only to 'fight back' with some really good plays, equalize and steal a draw?

2. If I draw a guy 300+ rating points more then me, it sure feels like a win!
dai_feind_katana 27 ( +1 | -1 )
No matter, everyone will not be that good. For everyone who is given the gift of chess gets better and better over the years, but some worson. all have different atratigies, ideas and questions. the day when everyone never wins or loses, will be after we die. it is no big deal to worry about that now.
batman_255 129 ( +1 | -1 )
Perfect Games I belive that we will never play a perfect game. Even with highly advanced supercomputers, they will still never play a perfect game because we humans program them. So, theroreticly we will never reach a perfect game unless we discover a miracle solution to chess. I am not a therotician, but I still am pretty good at philosiphy. I mean, to firgure out how to play a perfect game, a higher intellegence would have to help us along. So far, we humans are the most advanced intellegence that we have scientificly discovered. Not even a 500 ghz. computer would be able to play a perfect game. The programers make sure a computer can come with the most move possibilities as fast as possible. On my old 500 mghz. computer, Chesmaster 5000 at the Chessmaster level took an hour to make a move. Now with a 1.7 ghz. processer, CM 9000 takes at the most 2 minutes to reply to a move. On a 500 ghz computer, the move may be fast, less that .02 of a second after our move, but it still would be like a human move. There is only so far we could go in 2D chess. In 3D chess, there would be more possibilities at the game, and we could excell at chess even further. That is my view on "The Fate of Chess"

-- The Caped Crusader, Batman
kremator 129 ( +1 | -1 )
Batman_255 That's where you're wrong batman. Chess is all about calculation and whoever calculates the furthest wins. Chess has it's limits and although the number of possible moves that can be made is astronomical the computers can still calculate far enough. Since the computer analyzes EVERY possible move until it finds that the move will be refuted with 500GHZ it can be done very quickly. Also although we programm computers it doesn't make them humanlike. Computers have no intelligence, no fear they only do what they know is right. Humans have limits in calculation and they have emotions, those things may limit them. Computers on the other hand will work relentlessly until every bad move is eliminated. Everything in chess is about calculation tactics must be calculated, combination must be calculated, and the computer can easily do it. Recently, Deep Blue drew Kasparov. After Kasparov got a taste of it's gameplay he said that Deep Blue can now understand positional play, but a positional error or advantage is simply a tactic that has a long lasting advantage. Deep Blue improved so much over its predecessors because it can calculate far enough to see the effects of a positional advantge.
atrifix 31 ( +1 | -1 )
Theoretically Humans can currently calculate much faster than computers, and even if a stable 500Ghz chip were developed (not for awhile), the human brain would still calculate faster. Eventually, it is conceivable that computers will exhaust the possibilities of chess, but probably not in this lifetime.
kremator 22 ( +1 | -1 )
How could a human brain calculate faster? We are good at chess because we have memory and experience and we rember things. Eventually a computer will be able to store enough information about chess to dramatically shorten the time it takes to calculate.
atrifix 71 ( +1 | -1 )
How? Pretty simple...humans can perform around 100 million calculations per second and current computers aren't anywhere remotely close. However, human calculations remain constant while computer speed doubles every year, so eventually one would imagine that a machine will be built that equals or surpasses human brainpower. But not for awhile.

I'm not sure what you mean by "shorten the time it takes to calculate." Ultimately, moves like 1. e4 and 1. d4 will be extrapolated to stalemate or insufficient material or checkmate, so there won't be any need for appraisals or further calculations (ideally the computer will simply select the move that leads to a draw or win). Sometime in the distant future :)
kremator 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Umm atrifix If we are so much faster than computers why does Garry Kasparov use fritz for his analysys, and why did computers decisively engines beat Kasparov in blitz?
silverwolfwsc 32 ( +1 | -1 )
in order to have a perfect game every time a computer would have to analyze every single possible move that his opponent would make, right from the first move, and have an answer for every single variation.

This is simply not going to happen any time soon, not with computers, and not with humans either.
kremator 34 ( +1 | -1 )
Perfect games Were not my idea but they do exist. It's not just me saying it it's a computer. I never seen them but I know they exist. Anyway I am not worried about chess games being draws or wins for white. It won't happen soon. I just played a game of Tic Tac Toe the day I posted this message and wondered if chess will end up the same way.
chess_champion 84 ( +1 | -1 )
my thoughts... bluebabygirl: nowhere in my statement did i say that humans were perfect or were going to get perfect... humans will however get better. and i was only stating that 3D chess can be another way to play this amazing game with more possibilities, outcomes, etc.
batman_255: 500 ghz will eventually come... what about 500thz (terahertz).
atrifix: fritz can easily calculate 100 million moves per second.

and for perfect games in general i think that they wont come about for some time until those massive number crunching supercomputers with 1000's of gigahertz come out.
chess_champion 6 ( +1 | -1 )
kremator yes eventually chess will end up the same way- well maybe...
atrifix 180 ( +1 | -1 )
Humans vs. Computers Human brains process about 100 million instructions per second. Deep Blue only processed the equivelant of 2-3 million instructions per second, which is still far advanced of even the technology today (the Deep Fritz which played Kramnik only processed at about 1/4 of that speed, and average PCs don't even come close). So Deep Blue can calculate with about 1/30-1/50 of total human brainpower, using highly specialized hardware. If Kasparov could concievably devote more than 1/30 of his brainpower to chess, then it would have to be said that Kasparov was calculating faster than Deep Blue. Estimates for computers that actually surpass human brainpower have been as early as 2020, but I'm still pretty skeptical of that.

OK, so we all know that computers "analyze" concrete positions "faster" than humans. I'm just trying to keep things in perspective--it's been estimated that there are more chess positions than atoms in the universe, and no modern computer, even with the finest available hardware could even come close to achieving perfection within any reasonable amount of time.

As for perfect games...you can't say conclusively that a perfect game exists until all the possibilities resulting from the initial position have been analyzed. There is good evidence that chess is a draw, so if that is true then any game in which neither side makes a mistake would be considered perfect (e.g. 1. e4 e5 1/2-1/2), but if, for example, it was shown that 1. d4 led to a White win then this would have to be revised.

Sure, eventually, as a perfect information, zero-sum game, chess will have to be solved, either by man or machine. But probably not for a long while.
peppe_l 83 ( +1 | -1 )
...And when it happens ...It has absolutely no effect to amateur level chess.

Too much draws at top level? Not really, although it is true so called grandmaster draws are a problem sometimes. But if we count them out (agreeing for a draw in position that is far from drawish) IMO people just have to stop judging games by result. Nowadays people seem to rank poor decisive game over great drawn game. I wonder how many drawn masterpieces have been omitted from the books because after a long and complex struggle neither of the players made the decisive blunder, giving the game its place in history :-) Chess public has to realize not all games can or should be 30-move Sicilian Najdorf attacking tactical melee wins.

Too much draws in the future? Time will tell...



olympio 108 ( +1 | -1 )
My thoughts on this Personally I don't think chess is anywhere NEAR being played out. First of all.. the chess that grandmasters play so near perfectly now is a chess that has developed in accordance to a framework. This is a framework developed on key words like "pressure.. tempo.. space.. mobility.. pins, skewers, forks, windmills.."
The actual solution to chess.. the perfect game is most likely a bizzare.. absolutely unorthodox looking sequence of moves that bear no semblence to the kind of game played by someone who is trying to keep the initiative.. and develope his pieces. Bottom line.. chess is simply broken into stages of opening, middle game, and endgame.. and these are all played according to the framework that we, as humans have developed for ourselves to use in the absence of the ability to calculate every possible combination more than 10 or 20 moves ahead.

REAL played out chess most likely would look nothing like the chess we see today.

btw.. atrifix stated deep blue calculated 2 million positions per second.. actually it was 200 million.
honololou 9 ( +1 | -1 )
perhaps… Fischer random chess is the future. I have never played it
but the concept is intriguing.
atrifix 38 ( +1 | -1 )
Sorry what I meant was that Deep Blue processed the equivelant of 2 million million (2 trillion) instructions per second, and the human brain processes 100 million million instructions per second. This is not the same as the number of nodes searched, as many seem to think, rather it is the rough equivelancy of general-purpose instructions per second. At any rate, the conclusion is still the same.
olympio 45 ( +1 | -1 )
so If someone could harness the raw computational power of
the human brain.. we could see for some interesting chess.

In fact.. a human brain with Kasparov's skill at
understanding a position that analyzed 1000 board
positions per second (in my opinion) would play chess like
a God. Let alone 1,000,000 positions per second.. that
would be unreal.. he'd practically solve the game due to
his ability disregard most positions almost instantly.
kremator 36 ( +1 | -1 )
Our brain is only limited by how much oxygen flows into it. We, human, smart as we are only use 30% or even less of our brainpower. If we could have even more oxygen than we currently have flowing to our brain we'd be able to calculate even more. Anyway this is kinda getting off topic lets just post no more replies.
bluebabygirl 38 ( +1 | -1 )
TO ANY the fate of chess is safe from being solved by the human brain unaided . now about computers maybe given enough time they could solve it up to a level beyond our comprehension to repeat unaided . that is playing OTB play unaided so to me its still safe from being solved . the magnitude of the task is almost unfathomable!!! yours bluebabygirl
bogg 107 ( +1 | -1 )
computer advances With todays best home PC and a good program like Fritz you can get an evaluation in 14 minutes that would rival a 2800 player's in a 40 in 2 game. If they keep increasing the speed of the PC at the same rate that they have for the last 20 years for the next 10 years it will take only about 15 seconds to achieve the same quality of answer and that isn't even counting the about 20 points a year that the bots gain from programming improvements. If the same advanced computer is then allowed to think for 4 minutes its evauation should surpass that of a 2800 player's home analysis. I would guess that might mean an end to correspondence chess or at least that the best players would be cheaters. But maybe not, about 10 years ago the best backgammon players in the world were bots. That is not the case today even though the computers are much stronger now than then. The humans learned from the computers and surpassed them. Hopefully we can do the same with chess.
olympio 43 ( +1 | -1 )
i think chess is enough more refined than backgammon that a computer that beat us all the time wouldn't teach us much.. would just beat us all the time.

btw bluebabygirl.. humans use 100% of their brain.. and increased oxygen to the brain actually does not clarify thinking it causes euphoria like a drug would. it's oxygen to the blood that increases ur cardiovascular endurance but that's unrelated to the brain.
olympio 6 ( +1 | -1 )
woops I guess that was addressed to kremator not bluebabygirl. sorry.
bogg 99 ( +1 | -1 )
olympio Actually in some ways backgammon is much harder than chess. For complexity backgammon is ranked about as far below chess as chess is ranked below go. The things that make backgammon difficult are the huge branching factor, about 350 as compared to chess at about 35, and you have to be able to assess to within a couple of percent your probability of winning. Backgammon requires two specific skills, probability and positional understanding.

In chess we have strategy and tactics which are really just short and long term tactics. I think it is quite possible that when chess playing computers get to where they can calculate far enough ahead that they start to play good stategic moves that we will learn from them. Think of the past and when a great player came along, they made a lot of murky concepts clear and sometimes entirely new concepts were brought to our attention.
bluebabygirl 145 ( +1 | -1 )
to bogg come on now we both know that the LUCK factor is too great in backgammon. that makes it a game of skill and luck with luck being too great a factor. but in chess luck does not exist if you win because other player makes bad move thats not luck (even though some call it that) thats his lack of skill !! whereas thats caused by your skill sometimes to make other player make mistakes . you said backgammon required two specific skills -probability and positional, understanding -you left out LUCK , same kind of luck as in rolling the dice . now on chess you forgot the most important factor a players creativity , you only cite strategy and tactics as if they are simple concepts well both are very very complex at any level even more so as level of play increases - this is compounded astronomically when great creativity is factored in . so i never believe backgammon is harder than chess in any way or ranked just below chess on comparision with go . asessing your probability of winning in backgammmon is same as making an educated guess, wheras in chess because of skill factor its a matter of skill , calculation and your creativity. to me you expanded backgammon to something its not in complexity and you tried to simplify chess to something its not!! just my opinion and i being human can be wrong but on this i am sure that im right . yours bluebabygirl
xerox 5 ( +1 | -1 )
gammon sorry, but I don't find that gammon = luck
olympio 52 ( +1 | -1 )
here's how i see it the lord of all games: (i'm very sorry to say it) Go. Go has a richer history than Chess.. and is more complex.. and a more beautiful game..

Chess has to take 2nd place


Backgammon.. bluebabygirl is right that luck is a big factor.. however.. if you are very skilled at it you will win 95% of the time to a player that is less skilled.. so it's not THAT much luck.. and computers could routinely beat humans.. which means it wasn't just luck.. (i say could cause humans learned their ideas and now the computers are in distance 2nd)
bogg 27 ( +1 | -1 )
backgammon and luck There is luck in backgammon, but the probability of winning a 25 point match is considered to be the same as a game of chess. By this it is meant if you are about 200 points better than your opponent you should win about 3 out of 4 times. The shorter the match the more luck factors in.
bluebabygirl 67 ( +1 | -1 )
to olympio comparing Chess and Go is like comparing apples and oranges , depends on the person which they think is best . to me Go is complex in a very different kind of way than Chess is ,. does that make it better or a more beautiful game - not in my book . to me Go is a numerical linear game ,that requires great calculating ability and massive memory .. While Chess is a beautiful , artful game that gives free reign to the imagination - that is assuming the player has one . and my dad plays Go with his friends . I know how to play but i found it did not stir my imagination as did Chess. how did you come to the conclusion that Go had a richer history than chess???yours bluebabygirl
batman_255 20 ( +1 | -1 )
Brainpower Acctully, you use under 10% of your brainpower. Even Albert Einstein only could use around 15% of his brain. To use all of it, and focus it on chess would take about 20 times of our current lung capacity.
riga 143 ( +1 | -1 )
The Parodox of Chess Chess is a game in which its players try to reach a state of perfection. However, when they do, and it probable that they will (at least at chess), then chess will be obsolete.

-Jose Capablanca forsaw this those many years ago.
-Alekhine was and to some people (especially me) is the greatest tactician to have ever played the game. His own way of making the game more intersesting was to get wasted and play.
-Kasporov who was a master at 15 was known as Mr. g4 (sounds better in Russian). One of the reasons he is so successful, other than his skill, is that he completly screws up the position into a tactical Nightmare, although the positions are not bad for him, his preperation gives him the slight edge needed.

Bobby Fischer, after taking a break from chess for so many years proposed a random arangement of pieces in the beggining of the game. Many GM's saiid it was because he missed so much of the advancing theory, he just couldn't catch up. Another idea is that he quit because he got the game perfect. No error was left unexploited and no blunder left unpunished. Of course he probably just got wasted like Alekhine used to.

As for what will hapoen to chess when they "get it right", no matter when that is, don't worry about it, the human race will probably either have blown itself up or have gotten sucked out into space through that big hole in the o-zone by then.
bluebabygirl 50 ( +1 | -1 )
re sorry but nobody has ever mastered chess i mean truly mastered chess!! some have come close given our level of understanding such as CAPA , , FISCHER ,,LASKER AND ALEKHINE ETC. BUT IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT THEY ONLY CAME CLOSE , UNTIL A HUMAN CAN ATTAIN ABSOLUTE PERFECTION IN HIS OR HER LIFE , THEY HAVE NO CHANCE OF REALLY MASTERING THIS WONDERFUL GAME . STRONG STATEMENT BUT MOST LIKELY TRUE AS TRUE CAN BE / YOURS BLUEBABYGIRL