Originally posted by Dies IraeIt will probably happen when the average desktop runs on a 512 bit processor with a cache measured in gigabytes, and RAM measured in terabytes.
The thing we really need to worry about is chess being solved. Finding the perfect lines that cannot be refuted. And then ultimately the perfect game, any deviation from which leads to a loss. This may seem unlikely or impossible, but I don't think it is.
Originally posted by Dies IraeI think you over-estimate how much the human brain can memorise. Morozevich (world ranked number 8) recently failed to win with king and queen versus king and rook, but yet this has been solved for many years. The fact is that human chess does not succumb to memorisation... not now, not ever. Players with good imaginations, calculation skills, positional understanding, etc. will always succeed more than those who only try to memorise.
GM's would know the points to exploit for every opening, and there would be a very high degree of memorization.
Originally posted by MarinkatombPerhaps no one good enough to maintain the forced win with 1.e4 have come along. Since all current players (machine and humans) are so far from perfect, perhaps it is they who need assistence of a mistake to win. A perfect player may need no mistakes.
There is no forced mate! That is a myth. If you look at ANY win, it is always the result of a mistake.
When playing a much weaker player, chances are their perception of where they messed up is much different from the better player's perception. The weaker player will generally think their mistake was later in the game than will the stronger player.