Can Chess be Solved by computers?

I read that a computer had worked out all the possible moves of Checkers. Is a day coming where Chess will suffer the same "fate" or are the numbers just too great, and if so what are the numbers? If computers are on the verge of solving Chess then maybe Fischer Random is the way forward.

If you are worried about computers solving the game, you should try Go.

The largest commercially available hard drives are probably too small too hold the tablebases containing all chess positions with eight or fewer pieces when these are generated sometime in the next five years (it may take longer)--the seven piece require approximately one terabyte of memory.

Solving chess from the starting position is many years away, and unless Moore's Law is shattered in the next few years (as some have predicted), will not occur in the lifetimes of the generation being born to today's youth.

Computers are not yet skilled at Go.

It wouldn't be fun to play chess against a computer that is perfect anyway. I already don't enjoy it, because the computer always makes the same mistakes, allowing itself to fall into a mating trap, but never makes blunders. I prefer humans.

it can happen that chess program might solve almost all important chess problems, even tough there would still be room for debate wether its strategically best, even so, human vs human chess problems would never be entirely solved as long as we remain humans as we are now :), so have fun until then.

If solving chess from the starting position is many years away, have computers solved the first 20 moves yet? If so studying Chess openings at the top level will become irrelevant.

Checkers has a limited number of moves as each piece cannot move backwards until it is kinged plus there are forced moves where if a jump is available it must be taken.  Chess has every piece except the pawn able to jump backwards and forwards and pawns can then promote to any piece, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'd say it's impossible to crack chess, but if it is, as someone said, no human could memorize that amount of knowledge, so unless you started playing in a computer chess league it really is of no consequence to OTB or correspondence (Honest) playing humans.

The first 20 moves are not solved, not even close.

And even if they some day where, opening study would still be required in the top.

The solving of chess is done retroactively, that is, we are solving from the back, not from the front! The first moves will be the very last to be solved.

Chess is "solvable" by definition, since it is a game of complete information, and the positions of all pieces and their legal moves are available to both opponents at all times.  If two opponents play a perfect game, the outcome should always be a draw.  That said, it will probably be a very long time before anyone figures out what "perfect play" really is, since the complexity increases greatly once you get just a few moves in.  And number-crunching doesn't work either, since the number of possible legal moves (look up "Shannon Number") rivals the age of the universe!

So, it's my conviction that Chess will always be "solvable", but likely will remain "unsolved".

I think that with the advances in technology computers will get better and better at chess, but will never completely "solve" it.

Not classical computers -- if it's solved it will likely be with the use of a quantum computer.  I doubt it will occur within my lifetime.

I disagree. We don't know if the first move is an advantage in perfect play or if it is a weakness. One can't assume perfect play from both sides yields a draw...

yes, "one" can assume that, taking into account hundreds of years of human practice at the highest level. Claiming a forced win from the first move would be a gross insult against us humans. We've been playing this game for centuries now. If 1.d4!! had been a forced win, believe me, Kramnik would've known it, so would Alekhine, Kasparov, and any amateur that has Rybka.

To the original topic, wheter it can or cannot be solved shouldn't be a question, because as it's stated above, it's a "closed system" and it is by definition solvable. It's just a matter of time.

We've just had a forum post about this.

First, we don't know if d4 is a forced win for either side, or a draw, or if it's the second move, or third, etc. Second, I don't make what I consider a fair outlook with the idea of insulting humans- I could care less if humans are insulted. Third, believing you, is not how people think upon the matter. Fourth, hundreds of years of high level play, Kasparov, Kramnik, Rybka, etc., have not "solved" chess, or 1. d4, so your claim is questionable.

paging doctors to the burns wards, philidor_position has a case of epic burn

just incase there is any confusion, I agree with tryst

All chess engines should be piled up in a big heap and burned.  Laws should then be passed to outlaw all chess engine creation.  That will "solve" the debate and improve the enjoyment of chess.