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

@shockinn: do you realize that ponz111 made an ironical remark?

@MeGusto09: In the second sentence you make the assumption that the program always wins or ties. That is a heavy restriction, which directly implies that it will never lose. If it will play against itself and one of the sides wins, then will the other side have lost and is the first assumption not true. But if we must assume that that assumption is true, then can it only draw against itself.

I think your statement is too crude. If you would say that the program will always win or draw when it plays with white and it will now play against itself, and you ask us what the result will be of that game, then must we say that all we know is that white will not lose, hence black not win. But that is all we know.

Wow, that is shocking. :-)

He is the OP of the thread. If you do not like the way ponz111 handles in this thread, I would advice you to untrack the thread. It is chess.com who decides who are allowed to speak here (they are not Gods, but the hosts of this site, we all are guests), and ponz111 and you and many many other people have the freedom to speak here within the limits set by them.

Actually, I erred in my previous statement - ponz111 isn't the OP of this thread but of another very long one about chess being a draw (titled "True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides").

Nevertheless, as LoekBergman says, everyone is free to contribute as they wish as long as they abide by forum rules.

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

It seems complicated now but I am sure the iphone 9 will be able to solve chess in a few seconds.

PhoenixTTD  your few seconds is up--has the iphone 9 solved chess now? 

I noticed in Doctor Who when they travelled to the end of the world that no one was playing chess. I presume that means it had been solved.

You could have Magnus Carlson solve it, he probably knew vector calculus when he was 8 and if he saw Family Guy back then would say, "Ugh! This is so stupid I can't believe there are adults that find this stuff funny!" as his maturity is leagues beyond the average person's too. 

Magnus already has a very firm opinion on the subject "Is chess a draw" but he does not have the technology available to solve chess in a purely math way. 

I think he will win World Championship match by a score of either 3 to 1 or 4 to 2 in number of wins--the rest being draws of course.

I'm studying a variation in one of his games, it's an endgame with rook against bishop, but the opponent has a passed h-pawn and the king can't move.  Likewise, I can't seem to get the rook and king to coordinate on the pawn to win it.  The obvious plan is to move the king to the queenside, sac the rook for bishop, win the other queenside pawn, and promote.  It's dealing with the passed h-pawn that's a problem.  It looks like a dead draw but the computer gives it an advantage of 1.8! 

Update: I researched another line and what was obvious was the need to ensure the black king stays off a6.  However, in the actual game black played g5? which is a natural and seemingly sensible move, I mean if a super GM can make that kind of mistake than anyone can.

Instead of 74.Kg5 in my Rc8 line maybe I should go with 74.Rb6 cutting off the king instead?  I really hate how computers can mislead you sometimes -_- In my alternative Kf5 variation I found the black king can simply huddle back to a6 anyway so it's fundamentally flawed should stop only doing computer moves for the opponent and centaur both sides. 

Yes, apparently with perfect play white can give up two pawns and win.  Who knew?

Its not about the amount of data you store. Solving chess cannot be done by brute force, since the computer cannot evaluate all the possibilities of chess. The game has the possibility of never ending but still not being a draw.
I feel if two perfect players were playing lets say with a rook and king vs rook and king, the game won't end. (Or if there is a rule agains this possibility plz enlighten me).
Unlike checkers or card games or connect four, chess doesnt end, you dont simply run out of moves.
Even if somehow someone figured out the algorithm for solving chess, you would need 10^90 years on a 1 Mhz processor. maybe 1000 times faster on a GHz, or even a THz processor (1000000 times faster). That barely changed the amount of time you need from a human perpective. 10^90 or 10^84 years, thats not much of a change. Number of possibilities in chess grows faster than an exponential function. MUCH FASTER.There are physical barriers(light barrier, quantum) preventing us from ever solving chess. Laws of (known)physics must be altered to solve chess. 

Call the Doctor. I notice there are no chess sets in the Tardis.

Well, I solved it :) I just did, really!

please share!  First and only glance I saw a draw.

Lets see how that works out with Moore's law.

If it takes 10^90 years with that processor, then in a mere 520 years according to my calculations it will take only one year. Which basically means chess can be solved exactly 521 years from now.

Except that it's a very flawed assumption to assert that Moores law will continue to hold for the next 520 years.