Answers.Body: <p>For the average player, not much changes.</p>
  <p>The problem is: Even if you can get to that exact position 24 moves deep in an actual game, and even if you know that 25.dxc6 leads to mate in 105, you have to be able to execute that mate on the board - you cannot consult the computer during a match.</p>
  <p>If your opponent has just 2 seemingly reasonable replies for the next 39 moves (before you get to the depth 80 where the win is evident), that's over 500 billion possibilities - and for most moves your opponent has way more than two reasonable replies. You cannot simply memorize all of it. You cannot calculate it.</p>
  <p>And if you can't memorize it, can't calculate it, and can't ask the computer... you're left with strategic concepts to guide you.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-01-22T04:48:55.357Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-01-22T04:48:55.357Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Body: <p>Let's take a hypothetical middlegame position, where there is one move that leads to checkmate for white and every other move is a draw.  Let's say that grandmasters examining the position, but not knowing the mathematical solution, would say that White has a slight advantage in development and more space, and they all agree that 25.Nd3 is the best move as it aims for the weak e5-square.</p>
  <p>The computer, however shows that 25.dxc6 leads to checkmate in 105 moves with best play by both sides, while all other moves, including 25.Nd3 leads to a draw with best play by both sides.  For those of you who say that such technology will never be possible, then let's jump into the future where computers are so fast that engines calculate 25.dxc6 to give an evaluation of +5.0 after 30 minutes and then stays at that evaluation, while all other moves they evaluate to be near 0.0, in which case we can still arrive at the conclusion that 25.dxc6 will most certainly be a tablebase win for White while other moves are likely a tablebase draw.</p>
  <p>Furthermore, grandmasters all rejected 25.dxc6 (or at least strongly preferred 25.Nd3) because they found it to be quite &quot;anti-positional&quot; and the variations they calculated led to no advantage for White at all.  But the truth is that the engines only find White to gain a +5.0 evaluation after depth of 80, which explains why the grandmasters could not find any advantage with their own analysis.  Furthermore, they analyzed their recommended move 25.Nd3 in great depth (for a human), and found White to be much better than black in all variations.  However, the engines find that Black equalizes after depth 40, which the grandmasters could not calculate to, and only with one specific main line that the grandmasters could not see even if they did calculate that far.</p>
  <p>This was a hypothetical position of course, but let's say that most middlegame positions in chess are like this, where one side seems to have an advantage.  What is the state of the game now?  Is it now a game of pure math and computation that strategic concepts go out the window and now is a game that the best move is best simply because it is?  What is that state of chess when we reach this level of technology and &quot;truth&quot; about the game?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-01-21T23:06:51.860Z
Comments.Text: Besides the nigh unreadable wall of text, I feel too many questions are confusingly being asked at once.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rewan Demontay
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-01-22T20:44:46.070Z
Comments.Text: This is very similar to what chess is right now, already. That the computer sees a win isn't very relevant even at top level because you can't use a computer during the game.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-01-23T01:59:37.907Z
Comments.Text: I don't think it asks more than one question. The three sentences with question marks in the last paragraph are all asking essentially the same thing.
Comments.UserDisplayName: D M
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-01-23T02:04:01.733Z
Comments.Text: I added a couple of line breaks to break up the text wall a little.
Comments.UserDisplayName: D M
Tags: <engines><strategy><tablebases>
Title: The state of chess when it becomes solved (or nearly solved)
ThreadText: # The state of chess when it becomes solved (or nearly solved)
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-21)
  
  Let's take a hypothetical middlegame position, where there is one move that leads to checkmate for white and every other move is a draw. Let's say that grandmasters examining the position, but not knowing the mathematical solution, would say that White has a slight advantage in development and more space, and they all agree that 25.Nd3 is the best move as it aims for the weak e5-square.
  
  The computer, however shows that 25.dxc6 leads to checkmate in 105 moves with best play by both sides, while all other moves, including 25.Nd3 leads to a draw with best play by both sides. For those of you who say that such technology will never be possible, then let's jump into the future where computers are so fast that engines calculate 25.dxc6 to give an evaluation of +5.0 after 30 minutes and then stays at that evaluation, while all other moves they evaluate to be near 0.0, in which case we can still arrive at the conclusion that 25.dxc6 will most certainly be a tablebase win for White while other moves are likely a tablebase draw.
  
  Furthermore, grandmasters all rejected 25.dxc6 (or at least strongly preferred 25.Nd3) because they found it to be quite "anti-positional" and the variations they calculated led to no advantage for White at all. But the truth is that the engines only find White to gain a +5.0 evaluation after depth of 80, which explains why the grandmasters could not find any advantage with their own analysis. Furthermore, they analyzed their recommended move 25.Nd3 in great depth (for a human), and found White to be much better than black in all variations. However, the engines find that Black equalizes after depth 40, which the grandmasters could not calculate to, and only with one specific main line that the grandmasters could not see even if they did calculate that far.
  
  This was a hypothetical position of course, but let's say that most middlegame positions in chess are like this, where one side seems to have an advantage. What is the state of the game now? Is it now a game of pure math and computation that strategic concepts go out the window and now is a game that the best move is best simply because it is? What is that state of chess when we reach this level of technology and "truth" about the game?
  
  **Tags:** engines, strategy, tablebases
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Besides the nigh unreadable wall of text, I feel too many questions are confusingly being asked at once.  
  > **username_2**: This is very similar to what chess is right now, already. That the computer sees a win isn't very relevant even at top level because you can't use a computer during the game.  
  > **username_3**: I don't think it asks more than one question. The three sentences with question marks in the last paragraph are all asking essentially the same thing.  
  > **username_3**: I added a couple of line breaks to break up the text wall a little.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2024-01-22. Score: 5
  
  For the average player, not much changes.
  
  The problem is: Even if you can get to that exact position 24 moves deep in an actual game, and even if you know that 25.dxc6 leads to mate in 105, you have to be able to execute that mate on the board - you cannot consult the computer during a match.
  
  If your opponent has just 2 seemingly reasonable replies for the next 39 moves (before you get to the depth 80 where the win is evident), that's over 500 billion possibilities - and for most moves your opponent has way more than two reasonable replies. You cannot simply memorize all of it. You cannot calculate it.
  
  And if you can't memorize it, can't calculate it, and can't ask the computer... you're left with strategic concepts to guide you.
  
  
  ---
  
  