Re: [tlug] Chess is dead (OT)

[Bruno Raoult <braoult@example.com>]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Benjamin Tayehanpour
<benjamin@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 12:25:50 +0200
> Bruno Raoult <braoult@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, by the way, maybe my wording was not good. "Dead" was maybe a wrong
>> translation of the French "mort" (which is slightly different from
>> "end of life" in usual speaking).
>
> Hmm. I think "senescent" is the word you are looking for.

Maybe. "Senescent" is also different, as far as I understand. Arghh.
language issues
will be a perpetual problem.

>> Example: Checkers is dead with my words (you could write a poor
>> algorithm that would win
>> any human).
>
> That's another thing altogether. A game may be *solved* (which would be the correct word here), but until you can solve a game from any given state you may still learn something from it.

I am not sure to understand: Checkers is solved for a long time (we
know the result from first move).

> Heck, even when completely solved, a game could still teach you futility. ;) [1]
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

Exactly. I understood that game as "we do not play again". If chess is
going the same way (for example "1.e4 will win after 123 moves", "1.d4
is a draw after 78 moves"), this is a problem. Fischer himself did not
like this path, and proposed to have some random pieces placement.
This surely would not help the endgame, but could help players to use
their brain instead of memory (beside his games, Fischer was good as
chess proposals: Time management, piece placement, etc...).
His time management proposal is today used everywhere.
"Fischer Random" did not have the same success (we know why: all
opening strategies, memorised, being nullified).

br.


-- 
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.