I'll have chess completely solved soon.

I've set Houdini to the task of analyzing the game of chess from move 1 to it's completion.  We'll finally know the perfect move for every position. Assuming that technology improves as we go along, the tablebases, which currently would need to be stored on a LOT of hard disks (since there are an estimated 10^50 positions), will be completed in a few thousand years.

That's "soon", compared to how long it was since the Big Bang.

The moral: don't pay any attention to a bored writer.

When it's finished, could you get it to solve the bongcloud, dued?

too bad houdini is an inferior clone of rybka. nice try though

Considering that Houdini beats Rybka, I don't know how you can say it's inferior.  And if you make a claim that it's a clone, you need to provide some proof.  I'm guessing that you don't have any proof of your claim and you are just trolling.  But if you have some proof to back up your claim, I would love to see it.

Too bad Rybka 1 was a clone of Fruit 2.2, rewritten for bitboards.  Nice try, though.

My toaster beat Rybka in a match.

since there are an estimated 10^50 positions.

shouldn't we devide that number with 20. since there is 20 way of opening in chess

if we only look at all possible combination from e4 this should reduce the complexity.

if we split the assignment up on 1,000,000 computers the task would take a lot less time

like a SETI project one computer looked at e4-a6 ...one computer e4-a5 variations and so on. each computer would then spent idle time calculating.

and each time it finds a losing move it would mark the move as losing to make sure never to calculate it again.

it would probably take less time. 

I think the original poster was just joking.  Even using your method, the time is way too long to even attempt.  Not to mention there's not enough atoms on this planet to store all the positions it would find even if it had the time.

i know the OP was joking but I think instead of trying to solve all possible move. let's just concentrate about solving e4-e5 and nothing else.

if we did that no computer would ever have to look at e4-e5 ever.

it doesn't have to store all moves. if it finds a losing move there no move wins it can mark this move as bad and delete the moves after that.

I think if we think out of the box it can work.

Even just using e4-e5, the search space is too great.  You can't possibly know if a move is losing unless you search every possible combination.

Assuming that it was possible...say fastforward to the future when these supercomputers do infact "solve" the 64 squares....what then? There will be no impact on the game between humans...

I thought the Earth was a computer built to find this out... maybe that was for a different question.

You have a point.

42