True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

I was part of the big bang and soon will be floating through space again.

The answer to the question depends on what the author of the question means. 

The author of the question, and the question in question.

I was gone for most of the week. Even if I had caught no fish, seen no birds, deer, bear, elk, the time spent away would have been vastly more productive than attempting to reason with those who believe that chess will be solved EVER.

This thread should be retitled Alice in Wonderland because so much of it is far, far down that rabbit hole.

AMEN and Hallelujah.  But don't count on it.  This thread took both the red and blue pills, and the rabbit went on holiday.

How is this relevant to whether chess will ever be solved? Seems like a bit of a distraction to me. 

Obviously my 99.94% figure was a little joke.  I could have said "more than 98%"  

My point is more than 98% of players rated master and above know that chess is a draw with best play for both sides.

There is a strong correlation between chess ability and knowing chess is a draw with best play by both sides.

and there is a good correlation between saying "There is a strong correlation between chess ability and knowing chess is a draw with best play by both sides" and dont understanding anything about chess or computing power or the limits of physics

Do you mean "not understanding"?

If that is what you meant the answer is "no"

One of the definitions of chess being solved would be to have 32 piece tablebases. It has been said that this would require more positions than there are atoms on the universe. If we cannot store more than one position per atom then there is a strong argument that chess cannot be solved (at least not until we get a bigger universe)

lpsw  it all depends on what is meant by chess being "solved"

Oh, sure - it's relevant to the question of whether chess could be solved, but the availability of 'space' for the solution seems to me to only impinge only trivially on the question of whether it will be solved (whether or not by humans, within one hundred years, whatever). I guess it's worth determining if there is enough space to start off, but that knowledge isn't going to help much imv.

I said I was done, but to help Atlec I will do a drive-by I will point out that in the studies for using carbon (diamond) lattices to store information (ions), that not only is information storing via the charge (+/-) being considered, but also using the spin direction of the electrons to store information.  Yeah, there's a ton of holes in the "not enough atoms in the universe" argument, but people like it because they feel like it's a sure proof that solving chess is "impossible".

It's indicative of the sheer impracticality, not meant to speak to an actual storage mechanism.

Similarily, take that same 10^123 and instead of matter or space, apply the time requirements to it and the impracticality becomes really obvious really quickly.

Sorry to pick at a sore spot - but looking at your games archive, you last played live chess on this site in 2010, and lost your two games of record. Some people play chess, others like to talk (a lot) about how much they know about it.

If it were up to you to solve chess, you are probably right - we are doomed.  

Fortunately (or unfortunately if you believe discovery is a bad thing), people smarter than me or you will advance technology in ways we cannot comprehend.  Maybe one of them will look back at this thread and scoff at us like we look at prehistoric cave drawings.  Or maybe not, I can't say for sure.

I am comfortable in asserting that computers can resolve the question of chess - that is, we will be able to determine the outcome of games, with best play, to a scientific level of scrutiny.  I know this will probably not meet your level of satisfaction, but who made you the moral authority on what "solved" is anyhow?

My game history isn't even a little bit relevant here.

By the way, I'm not purporting to be an authority on what "solved" is (moral or otherwise, whatever that means...). It's already a well established definition in game theory.

It is a little bit relevant.

OK, now that we have resolved the chess point - because we are talking about chess after all, there are three other disciplines to consider: (1) math, (2) computers and (3) clairvoyance.

Do you have advanced understanding in these areas?  Clearly, you understand the powers of ten based on your arguments, but are you some kind of mathematical theorist/computer hardware-software guru/nostradmus sensei/renaissance man?  Are you the next Da Vinci?

You probably are more of a philosopher - a skeptical one.  The skeptic demands proof on his terms.

I put my bet on the side of history that this (and more important issues) will be solved.

My credentials are also besides the point, the content of my posts can speak for itself.

But for the record mathematics, physics and computer science are my fields by education and computer science in particular by trade.

Sorry for the personal attack - it was a little below the belt...

To summarize our positions:

Your side will always demand the proof until it is manifest.  Proving this to your satisfaction may not be possible today, although the trend seems clear to me.

My side will always believe that such things can/will be solved with future advances.  

If you used the same standard as you are requiring of the pro-solve group, your goal should be to prove that chess cannot be solved, rather than demanding that my side prove to you that it can be.  

The problem with your position is, if you assume an infinite future, one cannot prove that a finite game will not be solved.  In fact, you have to assume it will be.

Personally speaking, I hope a lot of things get "solved" before chess.  

While I don't know whether chess will be fully solved, I can totally see a day when after the first 6-9 moves, it says "Mate in 241" or something.