AlphaZero: Will People Treat Chess the Way they Treat Tic-Tac-Toe?

The two can't be compared because chess has infinitely more move options, while tic-tac-toe only has 9! possible moves for the entire game.

Also if ya'll are interested in the alphazero games versus stockfish, check out my analysis of the games here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMdp0YHUzw4&t=255s

subscribe:

 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrcs75yPaYK6P3nNnyCkBPA

More people preferring to see computers play might happen, but only until it gets boring.

Post #1 is irrational and contradictory. If chess is solved anyone can draw with GM or Engines like Tic-Tac-Toe. If chess is not game of deep thoughts, SF would make draw with AZ very easily. Chess is a ornamental Skill , if anyone think playing sports will feed the world, that is terrible. Only fools disagree with me. 

For humans matters chess is already "solved" as no human can beat the top engines. But we still study chess, play chess and watch human chess games. 
Even if one day chess in 100% solved, with optimal lines for all the 10^150 deviations from the main optimal line, no one will memorise all this solution lines, and we will still be having fun playing chess.

Coffee house chess will live forever. I'm afraid pro chess will suffer. Chess patrons sponsoring GM events will dwindle. Weekend amateur events however will prosper. CHess knowledge learned from engine games and analysis will go to waste if not applied otb. I'm one of them itching to slug with other amateur players.

Yet AlphaZero is totally unable to play SuperMario.

DeepMind have achieved some impressive results with AIs playing Atari video games.

But for you, here is an AI of a similar ilk playing SuperMario.

No drafts has been solved but people treat it with respect.

The general scientific consensus seems to be that chess is theorically solvable but practically not. We are not even sure if making a computer able to reach this goal is physically possible.  Anyway, if this will ever happen in a far, remote future, i am afraid that the interest in chess will probably decrease.

"Physically possible" might not have been excluded, but "physically possible using any form of conventional computing technology we adequately understand (even given huge resources and development of the technology to its limits)" can be accurately described as excluded.

The reason is that even if every operation is very cheap, the number of operations is stupendously large.

No. I literally solved Tic-Tac-Toe on own as a child. The most modern and powerful supercomputers in the world, aided by some of the smartest programmers, with inputs of the strongest players, still hasn’t even come close to solving chess.

Even if computers ever finally solve chess the game will still remain very, very far out of the reach of the human brain doing so.

30 years ago people complained that most chess computers weren't strong enough to give a good game to a strong player. Now people complain that chess computers are so strong they've removed the mystique of chess,

People just like to complain.

I actually recently made a video on this here, where I answer with a little more depth than here.

This question is one that a lot of my friends who don't play chess always ask me. If chess becomes solved one day, would I still play? The answer is obviously yes. When and if chess becomes solved one day, it wouldn't matter one bit to me, you, or even Magnus Carlsen. This is because just because one single line is optimal, doesn't mean I have to play it.

What do I mean? It's quite simple. At my level, I play the weirdest openings in the world compared to some of my own peers. I play openings like the Wing Gambit, Philidor, and Scotch Gambit, all openings that are subpar to let's say the Winawer, Sicilian, and Ruy Lopez. So why do I play these "inferior openings?" The reason is simple, because they are inferior, people don't study them and I get into a position I know better than my opponents. I often beat players, who after the game, tell me, you can't do that! That's not allowed!

My point is simple, no one would be able to memorize all 100000000000000000000000 variations that some chess engine gives when chess is solved. Let's all just enjoy this game we all love! 

@Sean in #37,

I watched the video.  Thanks for the answer.  It's the same thing like whether a robot can lift greater weights than a human.  We will still lift weights.  And there are people who will still watch and compete at weightlifting competitions.

Exactly! Hope you enjoyed the video and hopefully my answer was satisfactory.

AlphaZero has changed my mindset after 60 years of classical chess. I no longer shy away from opposite coloured Bishop endings and not not mind opposite side castling. I am now willing to forgo the tempo for a prophylactic move and will ensure my King's freedom from future checks.

Chess is more psychological and there are many different styles of play which creates more diversity and thus more longevity. It only becomes dull if the styles of play become overly limited, that is if there is only one right way to do anything.

Human beings? No never.. Fischer was saying that a long time ago and here we are today. If computers ever take over the world maybe, but still no, because they still beat each other. Even alpha has lost games.

Machine thought is a tool.

Seemingly the best yet that solves

We will figure it out-

but not as think