Will a computer ever be able to beat all humans?

well computers which "learn" and "think" are being developed at a very quick pace.Not long before they hit chess matches too. Such computers will surely become better than most humans after handful of matchs against GMs. Currently as far as i know they havent been introduced in chess but once they come I m not sure humans will really hold up against it . Computers have always had better processing power as compared to humans , its just that they can only do what they are programmed to but once they began to learn , things will change. This is intelligence combined with no mistakes attitude and huge memory of computers will make short work of even GMs.

As for microwaves , these are microwaves which will learn to buy food from the market and cook exquisite meals which u could never imagine in ur wildest dreams.

i disagree, we are specialized computers in our own right, so when computer intelligence surpasses ours, it will be a day for the ages.

Our thought process isn't like a computers.

I've read in the Russian Wikipedia that Kasparov has lost the second game against Deep Blue in 1997 when missing a perpetual check and resigning just because he believed that the computer had played all that game perfectly and without mistakes. But the computer really made a single mistake in this game just by its last move! Kasparov missed this and resigned immediately. My own experience says me that that is a typical mistake of a nonbeliever that I often make if I play without hoping to God's help. Kasparov missed a single move that was enough to draw in this game. "The last step is the hardest one", a Russian proverb says, believers know that such a problem exists whatever a human does, and raises just at the final stage, when a single and decisive step is enough to win or to lose. And who can keep patience is the winner. Kasparov's error can simply be called the lack of patience. But to keep patience and to win, you must believe in the victory. You must have some target. A believer finds such target in believing that this is impossible (or inversely) to do something, e.g. to beat any human in chess using a computer, and makes all that he has to make, including all his decisions in a chess game, taking it into account. A nonbeliever tries to calculate all that he does and only makes his game too hard and complicate by his calculations. He has no target, and no support at critical moments. So, it was greatly harder to Kasparov to take a decision to not to resign, because it was too hard for him simply to believe in it. If he took this decision, and if he simply kept believing that it was impossible to lose to a PC, it would be enough to find this perpetual check in a couple of minutes. So, I repeat: If Kasparov were a believer, he would win against Deep Blue, and against any computer too, the fact that he lacked the last step to draw in his most famous game against computer (and in this one who made him suspect that he had been cheated by IBM) only confirms it, because he could not overcome a simple difficulty that every Russian believer meets and overcomes every day, and that is a spiritual phenomenon.

I even think that this single error of Garry Kimovich was enough to create a myth that computers are able to win any human, a myth that is believed everywhere today!

At the rate my 10 year old daughter is growing, she will be 70 feet tall by the time she is 40!

With perfect play from both sides, chess is a draw. You cannot force your opponent to lose, you can only punish mistakes. So to phrase the question better, it should be possible for computers to reach a point where they never lose. The strongest human players will still be able to draw against them from time to time though.

I think it will be many years before a computer can troll us like this pro just did.

I suspect that one of my best games has been played against a cheater using two PCs, the one for making moves, the second for allowing the engine to calculate. To do it, I only prayed before the game to win it in the name of God. In the middle of the game, I suddenly sacrificed a rook and made a check by the knight by the next move. The opponent took it by the queen, to my great surprise, and lost it. Still, I couldn't calculate the sacrifice until the end just because I didn't believe that my sacrifice would be winning. This game was finally drawn. When I analyzed it, I found a magnifique sacrifice of the queen after sacrificing the rook and checking, that would lead to checkmate if my opponent didn't accept losing the queen. I found incredible that my opponent, weak enough by rating, was able to find it without using the PC help during that game, and to accept losing the queen basi

So I think that faith is enough to win any PC, and, finally, even if you have completely no chess skills! But only if God's will accepts it.

unless they gain awareness and start making robots who make better robots who make better robots... read some scifi man!

if you had king and rook, and god had only a king, would he be able to eke out a draw? Or even a win?

or take the following position. Even though it is well known that 2 bishops can mate a lone king, I believe I could draw the following position, as white, against god.

Computers will never be 'smart'. They will do exactly what humans program them to do.

If out of non-existence, the universe can "ooopsie-doodle" itself into existence and then out of that improbable explosion inert dead matter can just accidentally stumble itself into self-replicating life and then life can evolve itself into star-gazing self-questioning sentience... given all that, you're having a problem with computers developing beyond the capabilities of their programmers? 

What if the people who programmed the engine have more faith than you?  What if your opponent has more faith than you?  Why would God bother influencing the outcome of chess games, sporting events or any other non-essential human activity?  Would God hurt others to help you, or vice-versa?

I'd leave religion out of it.  It's chess.  Sometimes a sacrifice (a chess piece, not a goat or a child) is needed to restore equilibrium to a position.  Giving up a queen for a rook and knight is not ideal, but some situations might demand it.  

Yes.

Then you must be 40+ years old and still think the universe can be summed up with Newton laws...

Ubik42, God helps to play entire games, He does not help to solve puzzles without solution created by humans. This is about your second case. In your first case, He may force you to make a blunder of the rook, to touch the piece that you don't have to move, if this is a real game, or to draw by time (the last is greatly probable in internet chess, for example, if He simply disconnects you ). I felt really disconnected by God himself many times, and not only in chess, but also in mmorpgs. I was forced to leave them, and I quite finished to be disconnected every 5 min just after I had left them. My mac is always under my icons when I play.

Calling computers as they are now smart is like turning a faucet, watching water come out, and calling that smart.

Programs have as much chance evolving beyond their programmers as faucets do.