That's why Alekhine became nazi.

I wrote a blog about the subject a while back where I used the ICCF database as an example:

http://blog.chess.com/FirebrandX/are-computers-closing-in-on-solving-chess

The interesting thing about the ICCF database is you get a performance pool from literally millions of hours of deep computer and human analysis combined. The trend of the game over the past 5 years from this pool cannot be denied. Chess is slowly getting chipped down to a draw with each passing year, and it's not taking quantum computers to do it. In fact, if current trends continue on ICCF, you'll see in 20 years opening books that allow black to draw no matter what white tries.

As for a practical solution, there will never be one. Computers play 150 move endgames when a human would have accepted a draw or made a blunder long long ago. If computers "solve" chess, it will only be for other computers.

Nope.  He did write some nifty plays though:

We may be a long way from solving chess in the mathmatical sense, but in the practical sense, I don't think we are more than 50 years away from all most grandmaster games being draws.

Now that would be a far bigger shame than a mathematical solution.

I'm still wondering if chess is on the verge of being solvent.

I'm sure it is, given (wait for it....) the right solution.

if white played a perfect game and black also played a perfect game, it is my opinion that black would end up in a zugzwang eventually.

lol

You have to understand that if black wants to draw, white ultimately can't stop it from happening. For example the Petroff in an ICCF game with an ICCF bookbase and a modern PC can draw against even a super computer. I demonstrated this very point against PrawnvsPrawn, where his 'beast' computer that he'd spent an absurd amount of cash on could not break down my petroff with my several years outdated computer.

The truth is, there are probably many millions of ways (or more) to play a 'perfect' chess game for both sides, and they all end in draws.

So that's why Prawn left!

Chess will always be what it is, and was, the game of kings now the king of games

And the prince of tides!

Nonsense. Games between the very strongest class of players are more commonly decisive than those of weaker masters. While there is solid evidence that the standard of play is improving, there is no evidence for an increasing fraction of draws with this increase. This pattern is continued in computer chess (worth examining since the top computers are the strongest players of all, currently). Here, there are a lot of decisive games and no sign of a decrease in the number.

With perfect play from both sides, checkers (we call it draughts) is a draw. Of course, chess has a hell of a lot more variations because pieces can move backwards, move differently and the rules are different from checkers. Not such an easy one to solve unless you apply a basic logical principal.

BOTH sides are able to make "waiting moves" in chess from many positions. Therefore, all else being equal (material) the game should be a draw with perfect play from both sides.

Although at the highest level there is a slight advantage to moving first, it is not enough of an advantage to prove decisive from the first move. Similarly, this also implies that white cannot be in zugswang. Result = drawn with best play from both sides. Though this has not been proven as yet, it will eventually be proven (perhaps even within my lifetime).

Processing technology does not seem to be showing any signs of slowing down. The good thing about the human brain is that the best players will still be able to draw with "best play". The reason for this is the sheer number of ways of achieving the same position in the ending. For example, a rook and pawn ending where one side has a total of 30 move options - even on tablebases, 10 moves might be dead level, 15 further moves might lead to a slight disadvantage and 5 moves might be considered losing moves.

It won't stop people playing the game.

Lol it might be. His beast had gone 100% all wins in centaur games and it started swelling his head. I told him it wouldn't beat me and we played a two-game match. I went in with the "I'm just going to draw both games since there's no way my crappy old computer can outplay his" approach and it worked perfectly. In both games, his beast's eval never got above dead equal. This goes to my point about the prefect chess game. If one side wants to draw, the other side can't avoid it. A win/loss requires a tango of risks, which isn't a perfect game.

I still stand by my opinion.

Its been over 200 posts, have we solved it yet?

The King's Gambit has been solved.