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

Why would we want to solve something when we already know the answer? 

Wtf!? Classic ad hominem, and even less relevant than the role of the universe's capacity for information in a practical solution of the problem at hand.

"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."

Very likely, given the number of times it has happened in the past. However, this doesn't equate to certainty about solving chess.

"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."

Can now, or will be able to in the future? On what evidence? The evidence presented so far points to the overwhelming difficulty of any practical solution.

Kudos for admitting to not knowing. When you see "I can totally see a day", do you mean in the sci-fi imagination or irrational belief sense? I too can see it happening, if I suspend disbelief or drink too much alcohol. I imagine the Minds in Iain M. Banks' Culture novels dismiss the problem as a boring exercise in brute force calculation, aided by quantum parallelism, with no relevance (yet discovered) to understanding how to deal with the really interesting questions. 

I'd like to know where your "6-9 moves" comes from? Does it actually make a decisive difference?

Atlec, I wasn't arguing with you, was just responding to another post which appeared to be questioning the relevance of your previous post.

The quantum computer thing appears to scupper the "chess can never be solved, based on the storage requirements" argument.

Whether it ever will be solved is a different question which we cannot answer. We need to consider nuclear wars and asteroids and things, can't be bothered with that argument.

If a decent chess rating were necessary to argue in these forums, they would be silent. TheGrobe's arguments are all that matter, not how well or how often he plays chess here. 

TheGrobe has stated well:

1) the need to define what is meant by solved

2) the magnitude of the problem

3) data storage challenges

I do not see credible rebuttals of his key points  

For sure, this thread has no real meaning unless "solved" is defined.

Solved is well defined.

The only attempt at a rebuttle seems to be sheer blind faith that technological advancements will prevail.

This, to me, indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of at least one of the three points above.

I personally dont want it to be solved ever.

You're in luck....

Physical space will be an issue for a long time to come. It may be possible to resolve it, but it is extremely unlikely that solving chess will ever be high enough of a priority that a substantial portion of the universe will be given over to storing the necessary data.

So it's point #2 you don't grasp then.

"The storage capacity of the universe is a lot lot larger than 1 bit per atom."

Yes yes, and in an infinite universe chess is not only already solved, but has been solved infinite times.  Great.

"The storage capacity of the universe is a lot lot larger than 1 bit per atom."

The point is that if the above statement is true, then the storage argument does not prove absolutely that chess cannot be solved.

And you're being rather lazy if you're claiming this was either of the poster's position on the matter 

"You know why chess isn't solved?  Because it's a game and no one cares."

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the reason.

But it is a compelling reason nonetheless.

Indeed, a perfectly played game, however construed, will end in a draw.  And that's the "personal prejudice" of most GMs as well.

That's an entirely plausible assertion.  Proofs (however construed), notwithstanding.

Yawn.

Yeah, that could be another explanation.

The storage argument isn't necessarily meant to be a practical one, but indicative of the practical limitations.  As I said above, take the shannon number and apply the processing requirements to time instead of matter and/or space and you'll see that you have an equally intractible problem.