In a previous forum we discussed whether players would quit if the game
of chess was solved and the overwhelming consensus was a definitive "NO" to
that question.
     Now we ponder the question if a computer solves chess would it be a
draw or would it be a win for white?  We will assume it would not be a win
for black although one must admit that would be a surprising turn of events.
     So if chess is solved will it be a draw or a win for white?

if you take it from the films then it will say 

" There is no winning move, the best move is just, not to play it"

so I think it will be a draw

littlehotpot, its "not to play it" not "to not play it". splitting the infinitive.

@madhatter5

It's also "it's", not "its". Also "splitting the infinitive" is a sentence fragment.

I suspect the solution will be a draw.

Tic-tac-toe is solved as a draw.

Checkers was solved as a draw. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12296-checkers-solved-after-years-of-number-crunching.html

Maybe some archetype that creates such balance.

I think that it's likely to be a draw. Note that the percentage of games drawn goes up as ranking goes up, in general, so if the trend continues I think that it will always be possible to draw. That is to say, as the ranking increases to infinite values the percentage of winning games for either side decreases and in my eyes that means that it will be solved as a draw.

Steintz says it is a draw, alot of strong players have said it is probably a draw. Most probably a draw.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+chess+a+draw+with+perfect+play%3F

My suspicion is that the advantage of the first move is not enough to force a win.  Actually proving this will not happen any time soon.  Checkers has been proven a draw, but it took a computer scientist 20 years and vast amounts of computing time to prove this.  The state-space complexity of checkers is around 10^20 power.  The state state-space complexity of chess is often estimated at 10^40 power. (sometimes estimated higher).  Which means chess has ten billion times ten billion more legal positions that checkers.  Some mathematicians estimate that to brute force solve chess by checking all possible legal games, you would have a game tree complexity of 10^123 power nodes.  To give you an idea of how big that number is, the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe is around 10^80 power.  So basically, with existing technology a minmax solve of chess is impossible.  There just isn't a box that can crunch the numbers or store enough data to do it

I suspect it will be a draw no matter who solves it.

Sofademon, that's not entirely true. While the number of possible game lines is more than the total atoms of our visible sphere of the universe, the number of legal positions is not. If you were to make a 32-piece tablebase hard drive where each atom would equal one chess position, the hard drive would be slightly larger than our Earth. Still astronimical of course, but technically possible.

"...the number of possible game lines is more than the total atoms of our visible sphere of the universe"

I have no idea why people keep referring to this obviously ridiculous claim.

when solved, Black wins with a smothered mate.

I suppose it is possible in the sense that it is possible for tiny purple pigs to fly out of my butt.  Provided you could selectively breed the winged porcine pests in the first place it wouldn't break the rules of physics. (Although I might ruin my weekend for you to get them in there in the first place) But I don't see the peoples of earth uniting and spending several centuries, if not milena, devoting the entire economic and scientific output of the planet to gathering the resources to build a hard drive, with a circumference larger than the equator, in space, solely for the purpose of solving a board game.  Not gonna freakin' happen.  I would be willing to bet a donut on it.

Hilarious!

Well, perhaps because it its accurate.  Check the math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_tree_complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

By the way, if you want a real brain bender, look at the complexity of Go.  In terms of game complexity, it makes chess look like tic-tac-toe.

I don't even have to go to wiki to know this claim makes no sense. It reminds me of what a philosopher once said: 'Mathematics are synthetic a priori, yet have nothing to do with the world'.

Yes, the justification for this statement is that it is true. Quite simple arithmetic estimation, coupled with the current consensus view on the large scale structure of the Universe.

Go is indeed more complex (in fact the most complex finite deterministic game. See Wikipedia), which has made it much more difficult to produce very strong Go programs, although they have achieved significant strides in recent years using Monte Carlo methods (which essentially involves playing lots of random games, with moves that are merely legal). Methods closer to brute force search such as those used by chess computers are ineffective with the tree of legal continuations being so large in Go. 

fixed but I was quite tried when I wrote that and I wasn't concentrating

Why, but chess is already solved!

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/chess-is-solved

Hmmm, most people avoid saying estimations are true, Elroch. I also find comical that you think measuring the amount of "atoms in our visible sphere of the universe" is not only possible, but you think there is a "current consensus" on the matter. It's not that I think you are just announcing your ignorance, it's that you think others to be ignorant enough to believe you, which is just insulting.