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

Just for fun, estimate the total computing power of all the computers on earth and generously assuming a billion positions per second for the equivalent of a personal computer what kind of time span would be required to solve chess?

A)  About the lifespan of a person
B)  Estimated lifetime of humanity (past up to now)
C)  Estimated lifetime of the earth (past up to now)
D)  Estimated lifetime of the galaxy (past up to now)
E)  Much longer than estimated age of the universe

The answer may surprise you!

No, Sir @Grobe.  Your universalism of maths (and physics) is the one taking liberties in that case.  

And it's still a YAWN.  Despite your heroic efforts trying to convince the hoi polloi of various elements of game theory, inter alia.

Knowledge is not a definition, nor can it be construed as some kind of binary choice between absolutes, unless your thinking is fin de siecle 19th century.  In that case, it's quite an easy assertion (as you demonstrate), made frequently in these nutty forum threads.  No surprise there.

Thanks for your continuing efforts in any case.  Much appreciated.  

Indeed, it might be a fantastic 100 bits per atom.

Let's be generous, I will grant you one million bits per atom. A lot lot larger (and far far far far far ahead from every existing storage system, but let's forget about that).

Now, to store binary information about the 10^123 positions a strong solution needs (ie again drop the draws), you need instead of my enormous estimation of 10^123 atoms, the ridiculously smaller amount of 10^116 atoms. There is till a bit of way to go to fit into a reasonable size, though.

I don't even know why I write this, I know that math were never an issue for some people here.

They say there will be 2 billion computers in the world by 2016.

At 1 billion positions per second, Thats 2x10^18 positions per second.

For all estimated 10^43 positions, that's 5x10^24 seconds.

That's 1.58 x 10^17 years -- about ten million times the estimated age of the universe.

Nevermind the fact that it's not the 10^43 positions that need anlaysis (and storage), it's all of the legal transitions between those positions.

Assuming that there are 10^80 atoms in the universe (the upper bound of estimates), you would need 10^43 bits per atom.

Your previous posts are typical of the absence to which I referred.

Your #1 demonstrates that you understand neither TheGrobe's call for definition, nor my assent. It is not that definitions do not exist, but that they are not clear in the grandiose claims of the believers who litter this thread with answers in the affirmative.

Your #2 shows that you fail to comprehend the magnitude of the problem.

If you read the first four pages of posts, you will realize how utterly foolish you appear when you (a latecomer to the conversation) assert that I have only read the last few posts.
 

True, chess will be solve when they determine two snowflakes are identical.

My guess is that given unlimited time and improved computer programs and capability-- chess will be "solved".  However, the solution will be basically meaningless... except perhaps to some future generation of sentient computer.

Why so people on this forum keep debating if chess will be "solved" without giving their definition of "solved"?

Most already know the game of chess is a draw if played without error.

It certainly appears to be a draw.

Ok, so we'll say solve means we know the evaluation of evey position.  Either win, loss, or draw (the only three real evaluations).

With this you can generate many perfect games and always perfectly refute any bad move in any position.

In other words a 32 man tablebase.

Did you read the thread ?

A well played game will draw simply because there is no "forced win" for white.  You can be up a whole piece (3 points) but be unable to force mate in many cases.

Let's reformulate the question(s) -- 1) Is there a forced win for white?  NO.

2) Will we ever be able to prove that assertion?  That answer is (almost certainly) NO.

All the rest is idle speculation.  Neither Georg Cantor's work on transfinite numbers, nor Star-Trek-like quantum computing, will provide us with the key to the executive washroom.  So just live with it.

Put the onus of the debate on question #1.  Then have a few beers.  

Are any of the standard openings definitely losing (with best play) for white?

I'd hazard a guess that 1. Nf3 .. 2. Ng1 is, but would love to see it demostrated conclusively. It may be one of many as-yet-undiscovered counterintuitive results for chess. Oh, for a 32 man tablebase!  And how many consecutive knight-return moves of are needed for a irrefutable, forced win for black?

Your comment that there is no forced win for white is idle speculation. You might as well have written "Unicorns live inside the moon, we just can't prove it".

The comment that there is no forced win for white is a lot more than idle speculation.  It happens to be true and If you ask a good player master or better--he will tell you chess is a draw with best play and there is no forced win for White.

There is very strong circumstantial evidence that there is no forced win for White. So strong that 98% of masters or higher will tell you this.

I agree completely with @Ponz111.

Unfortunately, too many people on this site habitually confuse the concepts of proof, knowledge, and warranted conclusion (compare classical rhetoric) with all sorts of idiot scientism ideas from the end of the 19th Century.

Chess players are a VERY eccentric lot.  Many are still stuck (intellectually) in "The Scientific Method" (a la Freshman year, class 101).  Give it a rest, PLEASE. 

Then (perhaps) you might decide to join the human conversation.

It's a very big tent.  Only pinheads exclude themselves.  

Chess is a draw ----> speculation

Chess is a win for white ----> speculation

Chess will be solved -------> speculation

Chess will never be solved ------> speculation

Saw it all with my dark spectaculations on.

Feel free to sit on those pencils.  Unless you'd rather speculate.

which pig said that ?

feel free to be "relevant, friendly or nice".