Will chess die?

Technology has made leaps and bounds over the years. We have taught them how to play chess, and they can already beat us at our own game (it's gotten to the point where even the world chess champion can't beat a computer).

Computers have gotten so good at calculating the best moves that it appears that eventually they will "solve" chess. In other words, they will be able to determine the absolute best moves for either side to play in any circumstance in order to guarantee a victory or a draw (there's some debate about whether both sides playing equally as smart would lead to a draw or a victory; I won't go into that in this post).

This possibility leads to an interesting question for debate: when computers solve chess, will chess die? Will people become bored with it and stop playing it?

In my opinion, absolutely not! There are several factors that I think will save the game:

Displays of raw human strength have always intrigued audiences. For example, there is no question that machines can easily outlift human beings. Yet we are still in awe at the astounding strength of muscle men. Compared to other human beings, no one is better. The possibility of outperforming such people still attracts audiences and makes for enjoyable competion.

The same can be said of Olympic runners, like Usain Bolt. Even a crummy clunker car can outrun him, let alone the most advanced racecars and airplanes. Yet the whole world loves to watch him race because his speed compared to every other human being in the world is an awesome feat that we can all admire.

So it's reasonable to predict that the relative strength and weakness of our fellow humans at the chess board will still be fascinating to watch and take part in.

Here's another consideration: Even when computers solve chess, humans may never catch up to computers in a) memorizing or b) understanding all the possible moves it would take to win every single time. A human with either capability would be a genius. A human with both would have god-like powers at the chess board. Such a person would certainly captivate audiences.

It's extremely unlikely that more than one such person would exist. Let's say that happened. What then? It would be an even more intriguing display of talent. Even in the hypothetical, unlikely situation where they always draw every game, chess enthusiasts would still find many moments of instructive brilliance to appreciate.

Let's hypothesize again and assume that one day people completely lose interest in chess.

There is still an ace in the hole for chess, and that is VARIANTS.

A chess variant is any game that puts a new spin on conventional chess. It doesn't necessarily have to be a radical alternation of the familiar game (although there are lots of those). One rule change would be enough to change the outcome of the entire game to keep it interesting.

In fact, that's already been done. Chess has a lot of relatively new rules: in ancient times, the queen used to only move one square at a time diagonally, the bishop moved two squares, castling and en passant didn't exist, etc.

So it's not unreasonable for the international community to agree to a new rule (or several) to change up the game. For example, changing the set-up of the pieces (as in Fischer chess), capturing one's own pieces (useful in a handful of circumstances), no promoting the pawn on the 8th rank, going back to ancient rules, etc.

If people were still thirsty for more variation in chess, there's no shortage of radically alternative variants.

Many of those variants are waiting to be caught on to.

Heck, we could even play chess's cousins, descended from the same ancient game but which look different from "Western chess." For example, Xiangqi, or "Chinese chess."

It appears that computers will not be able to solve chess in our lifetime, maybe even several lifetimes. That's because it has 10^120 possible moves to hash through. Take a second to write a 1 with 120 zeros behind it, just to get an idea of how astounding that number is. No one has yet created a formula that can calculate and solve that puzzle, so right now they have to guess and check all possibilities, one move at a time.

This means that we can be confident that it may be centuries before a computer can solve chess, and even longer to solve all variants. So between the time it will take for computers to solve chess and the countless variants available, you and I can breathe easy knowing that we and our descendants (many generations of them, too) will be able to enjoy chess.

But what happens when computers solve all chess variants (who knows when that would happen)? I guess we'll just have to come up with some other game to play (as if there weren't a million to choose from right now).

Which kind of begs the question: will computers be able to solve every game we come up with? That's a debate for another day.