890
Why does the horsey move like that
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
890 points (97.0% liked)
tumblr
3392 readers
51 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It took me many years before I got back to where I could enjoy chess and similar games as just fun things to pass time. For a long while, I didn't find games fun when I knew they had been "solved." It didn't matter whether I personally could memorize and execute on that knowledge.
This applied to video games too. If there was a perfect build or an optimal meta or a flawless strategy, the mere existence of it ruined the game for me. It seemed pointless to work on getting better when "perfect" had been achieved.
I think playing a lot of competitive fighting games helped. Realizing that "optimal" didn't always mean flawless execution, and that there's still fun just in seeing what you can train yourself to be capable of doing. It actually helped me a lot in understanding that if a game is fun, then that's what matters, the fun. Strategy and optimizing and "the meta" can be part of the fun, but if they aren't then ignore them, play at your level, and keep finding the fun.
Chess is not a solved game.
That's why "solved" is in air quotes. I didn't want to go into a long tangent about how while chess isn't technically a solved game, the opening and endgame databases that computers use, along with pretty powerful chess engines, essentially change the nature of the game. There's lots to memorize in the fairly rote early and late game, in the service of reaching an interesting and tactical middle game.
(I had a similar issue with starcraft...)
I think Kasperov has it right that hybrid chess is interesting because it let's the computer do the memorizing and give you a hand with board analysis. But i don't think of chess as particularly sacred so I just found other games that while not as popular or sometimes as deep, offer a more thrilling, unknown challenge.
It is true that there are theoretically good moves, and bad moves in the opening, but this is true of the entire game of chess. The existance of the opening database, and memorizing lines really just makes it a bit easier on the chess engine, and the player -- processing each move to such a great extent isn't necessary if one knows what move is safe beforehand -- but that still doesn't necessarily mean that the opening is solved. If by "solved" you are referring to the win rate for a particular opening, then I would caution against that, as it can be rather misleading, depending on how exactly you are looking at it.
As for the endgame, I mean, there's a pretty small set of moves that are possible -- if you see a mate in 2, is that a solved game to take it?
This point is moot -- are you using a chess engine when you play against a human player? I would certainly hope not.
Why not skip the memorization, and, instead, put your faith in your ability to strategize in every phase of the game?
one of the issues with solving chess is that
one engame with 7 pieces remaining is solved provided you can memorize 549 exact moves that forces a checkmate, but there is a rule that you must capture a piece or move a pawn once every 50 moves or else it's a draw.
the other issue is that to solve for a perfect game you need to calculate every possible decision tree. It is easier to map every single atom in every star system currently detectable by any means from the Earth than it is to map every chess move.
I read that supercomputers can solve any 7-pieces-remaining chess game, but they need a ~19TB database in order to do so.
19 TB is not that big anymore. For a company that buys storage systems, the more standard amount of useable space is going to be closer to a PB per system.
I think standard openings will get more and more moves added to them, but even at the highest level of chess there are still many valid openings, and many valid responses to each of those openings. Then, even after playing those "known openings", it very quickly ceases to be solved.
Part of the reason why I can't get into Rubik's cubes, and it also lingers in the back of my mind with puzzles like sudoku or minesweeper.
I have to admit that it's hard for me to play a game with an ending when I know I probably won't ever win.
I got really into nonograms (and einstein-riddle style puzzles) and I found the repeat application of known rules to be kind of soothing. Maybe it's a getting old thing? I'm still not really into puzzle cubes either but I think I get it now. When you deal with a lot of unknowns in other parts of life, sometimes its nice to work through something knowing there's a solution and a victory somewhere at the end.